Conspiracy of Words

An Open  Reply to Clint Richardson

Intro: Clint Richardson and I first encountered each other as guests on a 3rd pary’s radio program.  Over  a few subsequent months we discussed disagreements over this country’s problems via Skype text messages, and these discussions became heated. More recently I posted  a brief comment to an article on Clint’s “Reality Blog”, and Clint responded at length.  What follows is my response to Clint’s comments there.

Clint, thank you for your charitable welcome. However I’m afraid that we have a profound disagreement on our condition, and approach to evaluating that condition..

My overall disagreement with your thesis, in which you dissect words by their syllables to award them inappropriate meanings, a process that has no valid basis, is that it amounts to a “conspiracy of words” which, even if it had any merit, offers no benefit whatsoever, and no solution to the current corruption and our problems,  short of reducing mankind to a primordial communication of guttural grunts and gesticulations, devoid of any complex concepts, and any significant social structure.

The method of disassembling words to their syllables and then applying generic connotation to those syllables in order to make a series of connections between words, is not actually a valid approach, and does not constitute any sort of recognized Etymology, all while dissembling the foundational principles of this country.

The history of the English language unmistakably shows it is not constructed like bunch of Lego blocks pieced together to form words, but rather is the result of Greek and Roman influences, with its basis being Anglo-Friesian dialects brought to Great Britain in the 5th Century. The English language was then expanded by inclusion of German, French, Italian and Spanish words, as well as prefixes and suffixes.  The result is that the English language  has no developmental control resting in the hands of any singular sinister group, has no consistent methodology of word structure,  and is even recognized as having the most troublesome syntax  of any language — essentially a language that does not lend itself to being represented as a “conspiracy of words”.

The actual Truth to our condition is not some grand conspiracy of words, but rather the gradual and progressive corruption over time, not originally involving any sort of Machiavellian plot of extraordinary proportions, at least not involving the words themselves.  This is borne out by not only the historical facts, but English etymology.  The problem invariably has been one of corrupt men seeking to usurp more power than they legitimately held.  Fortunately, the words themselves are fine, and only some person’s understanding of those words is lacking.

My original post on your blog made a brief comment addressing the inappropriate authority you award to law dictionaries.   It is a gross distortion to represent those definitions in law dictionaries as being “legal definitions” – they are not anything of the sort.  Those definitions have no particular authority under the law, but rather only involve the more narrow or specified definitions which are more likely to be used in  communications in the legal profession. However, this does not exclude the use of what you describe as the ‘common” definitions from use in those same legal communications as well. It should be obvious that communications within the law profession do, and must necessarily use those common definitions.   Contrary to some rumors, the legal profession does not use its own separate language.

The proponents of the Sovereign Citizen theory typically reference Bouvier’s and Black’s law dictionaries as if these were some sort of overriding authority on, not only the meaning of words, but also the fact of our existence.  However, the reality is that “context is king”, with the actual connotation of the words being used being contingent upon the  context of the discussion, and this recognition is crucial to proper understanding.  Context is the critical consideration to all communication.

For example, in a 2011 interview discussing Obama’s gross overreach in the office of the President, Representative Allen West stated that, “The President is the chief executive officer in this corporation called the United States of America”.  Many misunderstood West’s comment to be a startling admission that the United States is some sort of clandestine Legal Corporation, when it was nothing of the sort. In context of the discussion, West was indicating that the federal government’s very existence is from the corporation (or formation into one body) of the sovereign States, and as such the federal government can only legitimately operate under limited authorities provided it.  Recognition of “corporation” as the formation of a singular body, or corpus (Latin), is important to understanding the context of West’s remark.

Contrary to your representation, these definitions from law dictionaries are not in some sort of opposition to the “common” usage and meanings, but rather invariably owe their origin to that common language, with the definitions having ties to that common understanding in some regard.

While some words in law dictionaries are “terms of art”, they are not by any means a majority  of the words, and none of them are “proprietary”.    Terms of art are merely a concise way of referencing complex concepts by a more manageable single word, or phrase, thereby avoiding  the cumbersome summation of those complex concepts every time the concept is referenced.

Terms of art are not in any way “artsy”, particularly if that reference is intending to imply some sort of falsehood, or dishonesty.  Such a representation would be irresponsible and inaccurate.

While understanding legal communications may be difficult for the average individual, this is not from any sort of conspiracy involving use of a separate secretive language, but rather from the inadequate vocabularies of these individuals.. Our task in communication is to understand these words in the context they were used, and not to create a new language and history from imposing our prejudices upon others words.

ETA,  Question:  Clint, there is one question I hope you can answer, particularly as a host of a program called “The Corporation Nation”.  What evidence do you have that the United States federal government is legally incorporated?   Some time ago a caller probed John Stadtmiller with that very question on his program, and Stadtmiller then passed on the question  to co-host Ronald McDonald.   McDonald’s answer as to proof the federal government was incorporated was, …  to cite a dictionary. (A dictionary! Are you kidding me?) .   It should be obvious that dictionaries do not dictate reality, and no incorporation under the law has ever occurred by any dictionary.  Clint, I’m hoping you can provide a much more valid explanation as to how this alleged incorporation occurred, and what might be the possible gain, given that incorporation would provide the federal government with no new authority or immunity. .


“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….”

Some theorists have viewed the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, and interpreted certain words (highlighted in blue), to have resulted in the deliberate corruption of that Amendment, specifically the words  “persons”, “born”, “subject” and the phrase “citizens of the United States.”  However the context and actual application of these words does not involve any sort of subjugation or enslavement.  These theorists interpret “person” to be some sort of enslaved lesser being, “born” or birth to be the point at which that enslavement began,  the adverb “subject” relating to jurisdiction to be a noun describing servitude, when it only is a reference to the terms active upon persons who are citizens, and  they view “citizens of the United States” to be a newly created federal citizenship, when this federal citizenship has existed since the Articles of Confederation and is established by Article IV, both  there and in the Constitution, by the Full Faith and Credit clauses in both documents.  None of these interpretations have any reasonable basis, nor are these beliefs at all recognized and referenced by any authorities acting upon us.   There is actually no evidence to support or validate these interpretations in anything that is occurring.

While it is recognized that the 14th Amendment was illegitimately ratified by compulsion under the corrupt terms of Civil War martial law, the 14th Amendment is not itself intentionally any great corruption, and even as recognized at the time by its authors in Congress, only sought to make citizens of those who for generations had  been slaves and not recognized as members of any society.

The actual corruption of the 14th Amendment came about 30 years after the 14th Amendment’s ratification, by the methodical corruption of the Gray court in United States vs Wong Kim Ark, in which Justice Horace Gray changed the application of “jurisdiction” from being the complete political jurisdiction, which has bearing on citizenship and effects the children of Ambassadors, Indians “not taxed” and aliens equally, to now being legal jurisdiction, which has no relevance to citizenship whatsoever.  In so doing, Justice Gray contradicted his own preceding decision from Elk vs Wilkins which recognized that political jurisdiction, and fabricated anchor babies, which is blatantly legislating from the bench, and being done in contradiction to the explicit intent of Congress.

This is all supported by examination of the legislation from the 14th Amendment’s ratification in 1868 on to the 1898 corrupt in Wong Kim Ark, which I detail in my blog article, Ending Birthright Citizenship.

Instead of taking on the personal responsibility and drudgery of actually educating themselves in this history and our language, some few individuals have chosen a series of entirely unfounded beliefs involving their victimization by a “conspiracy of words” which tragically even necessitates the belief that the U.S. Constitution was never intended to apply to the common man, when it is actually our only salvation.  No, the Preamble’s reference to “posterity” does not indicate it applies only those founder’s direct “progeny”.  I can state unequivocally that those Americans who believe the Constitution does not apply to them and benefit their liberties, are ignorant of that Constitution.


Supporters of these views believe such absurd things as:  a “person” being some sort of enslaved corporate asset, when person is only singular of people;  that the United States is a legal corporation subjecting us to super-secret corporate bylaws, when no such incorporation has ever occurred,  there would be no gain in authority or immunity by such incorporation, and bylaws only apply to corporate officers; that Citizenship is some sort of enslavement, when it is only the legal membership in a society; that the decor of a courtroom (i.e. fringe on a flag) determines the jurisdiction (i.e. Maritime), when it is entirely irrelevant; that birth involves the pulling up of waters onto land, subjecting us to Maritime Law, when very few Americans have ever had any aspect of Maritime Law actually applied to their consideration before the court;  that witness to a birth amounts to the surrender of that child as a property if the state, when that witness only serves as testament to that birth’s occurrence

These beliefs, and many others, are so devoid of any shred of evidentiary support, so utterly failing to provide any actual understanding and remedy, and so deep into the realm of “galactically stupid”,  that every adult having any distance from pubescence should be ashamed at having any association whatsoever with these superstitious beliefs.

The result of adherence to these and similar beliefs is that the few followers engage a whole series ridiculous incantations and posturing, all intending to extricate themselves from odious, oppressive authority, and even exempt them from the repercussions of their own actions.  They refuse to identify themselves by the combination of their Christian and surnames, particularly when capitalized – as if this were some sort of trap, instead choosing to identify themselves by such convoluted terms as “Christian name of the family Surname”.  They attempt to remove themselves from an imagined 14th Amendment federal citizenship, representing  themselves as only citizens of a given State, when that federal citizenship has always existed commensurate with State citizenship, from the moment the colonies became States under the Articles of Confederation;  and they refuse to answer simple questions in the positive,  such as, “Do you understand?”, foolishly believing the positive response somehow constitutes their consent to some obscure legal jurisdiction, when that’s not how the various jurisdictions of law are applied.

Invariably when faced with the utter failure and painful outcome of these misguided rituals and  incantations, the True Believer ascribes that  outcome to the corruption of the Court involving the discard of some sacred principle, such as common law.  Yet that common law is the Court itself decreeing from the bench what the law shall be, and is deliberately not any principle of this country, much less the equivalent of our natural law roots.

When forced to react to the failure of these incantations, rather than recognizing their own foolishness, the True Believer instead imagines the Court only  refused to recognized the necessary presentments and declarations sent at the appropriate times,  because, if recognized,  the irresistible force of these mystical incantations would invalidate and dismantle the entire process.  Therefore the only conceivable  recourse to the True Believer is to double-down on their approach, with minor variation, in hope of fine-tuning the incantation, or in bitter desperation, to resort to extreme action for entirely invalid reasons.

As indicated, this is long past excusable ignorance, and it is a destructive Cancer offering no positive benefit, at the worst possible time in this country’s history.

The beliefs of these few are recognized to be so absurd that those beliefs are used to stigmatize and dismiss the valid movement to restore real Liberty and constitutional governance.   For instance,  despite Cliven Bundy being conversant in the Constitution’s prohibition of the federal government from owning lands or writing laws within the sovereign States, despite Bundy referencing Article and Section of the Constitution, despite Bundy knowing the precedent of the Equal Footing Doctrine, Cliven Bundy was still condemned in all branches of the media as being an ignorant Sovereign Citizen, when this is nowhere the basis of his case!

Similarly more than 40 persons are now being held as political prisoners in this Land of the Free for their involvement in the Malheur Refuge occupation.  Also Terry Trussell is sitting in prison facing multiple felony charges of simulating a legal process, and the response of these person’s  supporters is to try to compel county commissioners to form their own independent citizen’s Common Law Grand Jury, which is still simulating a  legal process and in no way legitimate.

These tragic outcomes for essentially good people, doing exceedingly ignorant things, are the result of having subscribed to thoroughly improper beliefs popularized by people who have no real clue about the “gospel” they’re spreading.

We desperately need do be doing things differently, and that is why I object so strongly to your approach. Furthermore, from an overall perspective, it is extremely ironic that you propose the existence of a “conspiracy of words”, while you yourself engage in serial word abuse.


Clint, when beliefs are contradicted by fact, and nowhere supported,  then those beliefs are commonly recognized as having been disproven.   When a whole series of unfounded and  disproven beliefs are maintained, then those beliefs are recognized to be myth and superstition, which do not possibly provide any positive benefit.

In fact, it can be argued that adherence to such false beliefs regarding the corruption of this country only serves as an obstacle to true understanding, and barrier to  remedying the corruption that plagues this country, disabling us in the restoration of our liberties.

Clint, I truly believe that you sincerely want the restoration of that Liberty, and the limitation of government to only the specified, enumerated terms recognized by this nation’s founders, and therefore hope you might reconsider the theories you now promote, and join forces with other Americans to reach a positive outcome.

I welcome any response here from Clint Richardson, as well as cogent responses from others relative to this discussion.



10 thoughts on “Conspiracy of Words

  1. Clint,

    Here is an example of what does not constitute proof of that federal incorporation under the law, and an explanation why this is true. I hope you can recognize this as reasonable and accurate.

    In Tom Lacovara’s “Thesis” on RTR he indicates that:

    “The United States went from being a Constitutional Republic in the year of 1868, to a “FEDERAL CORPORATION”, so says US CODE TITLE 28 USC 3002 15 (a)”

    While this may seem to be a good candidate for being proof, given that it is U.S. Code, , it actually is no proof at all.

    Title 28 US Code Section 3002 is actually a definitions section for words used in that chapter. By this, Lacovara would seemingly have us believe that the United States is proven to be incorporated by a definition, not by any Act. Notably, definitions recognize how things are, or what they are, and not how they might be made to be. . Also, contrary to Lacovara’s indication, this reference indicates nothing about any transition from Republic to being a corporation, not does it mention the year 1828.

    The irony here is that we have always been both a Republic and a Federal corporation from the first formation of this country. .

    Lacovara’s referenced definition 15 is for the “United States” and definition (A) indicates “a Federal corporation.”

    Context is critical to understanding this definition. At its formation the United States was a confederation of the states, forming a Federal body or “corpus” (Latin), a corporation.

    In its most fundamental meaning, a corporation is an association to act as a single body, or literally “corpus”.. The definition is stating that the United States is a federal government body formed by an association, specifically the association of the sovereign States. The definition has nothing whatsoever to do with incorporation under the law.

    This reference in U.S. Code is the exact same context used by Allen West in his interview with Judge Napolitano in which West indicated that, “The President is the Chief executive officer of this corporation called the United States of America”. As with the definition in U;S. Code, Allen West was not making the startling revelation that the federal government is legally incorporated, but rather pointing out that the federal government is created by the sovereign states, and therefore has a fiduciary responsibility to operate responsibly within a budget.



  2. As to your ignorance about the “conspiracy of words” I offer my new book coming out soon to which this is the heart of the subject matter. Without words, including names, none of this would fictionally exist. Only a fool would dismiss the importance of specifically defined words as terms of art. But then, as you have stated above, the “truth” and “patriot” movements have created many-a-fool, including myself before I woke put to being falsely awake.


    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, your new book, titled “Clint’s Proprietary Dictionary & Guide to Serial Word Buggery”

      There is no such conspiracy of words. There is only your own word abuse.

      Your statement that, “without words, including names, none of this would fictionally exist” is thoroughly irrational to the point of being psychotic. The idea of something being “fictional” yet still “existing” is a mind-numbing rationalization, but you blaming this on words (“Without words”) and particularly “names”, is off the deep end.

      What you have done is taken the idea of a “legal fiction”, yet another reference you’ve read and did not grasp, and warped it into something entirely different. The idea that corporations are persons is a legal fiction, because that corporation is obviously is no single person incarnate. However corporations are allowed, and have long been allowed, to own property, and to sue and be sued, since before the creation of this country.

      As a result of owning property, and being the legally considered “a person”, individuals having a conflict with the corporation may sue the corporation itself, rather than having to sue the Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Operating Office, and the Heads of Research and Development, Production, and Product Safety. Without incorporation and the company being considered a legal entity, you would have to name each of those persons in a suit, and each of the owners of the company, and then even if you could establish liability, you would spend most of your court time establishing which member(s) of that company were individually and severally liable. And then any rewards you might receive would only come from those persons own pockets, not from the company’s pocket, as that pocket would be nonexistent and the company would have no assets of its own.

      This is why corporations are deemed to be persons, and this legal fiction is a necessary and positive creation, not one of corruption, not only for your benefit, but also for the benefit of those running the corporation itself. But towering intellects imagine corporate personhood to be some sort of Machiavellian conspiracy of enormous proportions, and demand the removal of corporations as persons, when it would necessarily result in their happy asses having to travel in a one horse-powered carriage, rather than a 220 horsepower capital intensive vehicle. The amusing thing is most have not paused to realize how thoroughly ignorant the position is.

      But you go on, and you indicate, “Only a fool would dismiss the importance of specifically defined words as terms of art.” Yes, yes, Dramatic One, and “Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!” (Credit: Vizzinni) No one is dismissing the importance of specifically defined words as terms of art. However you are quite clearly leaping to something other importance of your own creation, rather than the commonly recognized importance of those terms of art, in order to project some sort of conspiracy onto terms of art, involving them being “artsy”, just as you do with names. You’re too clever for your own good. However, notably, you do not specify here what that other alleged importance is to terms of art. Instead of clarifying, and having a coherent rational conversation, you leap to yet another reference, likewise unexplained.

      The reality is that terms of art are not inherently negative or positive, and are nothing more than words or phrases with a particular meaning within a specific consideration. For instance, the phrase “due process” is a term of art within law, which involves a whole range of considerations. Rather than having to detail every one of those considerations every time we discuss due process, we can merely reference the phrase “due process” and then presume we are talking about the same concepts. However Clint Richardson would sooner make up his own meaning and significance for that phrase, and claim that everyone else is talking about something entirely different, unbeknownst to them, and only Clint himself knows what we’re actually talking about. This is all only the end result of having 50 lbs of manure, and only a 5 lb bag of intellect to contain it.

      Clint, and only Clint, knows the true meanings of words, and after more than a 14 centuries of the English language developing and evolving, Clint and only Clint is the only individual (not person) capable of illuminating the “artistry” and conspiracy behind these words! God, bless us everyone, a savior has come into our midst. It’s a shame that even those Machiavellian conspirators that intend the enslavement of all mankind don’t have a clue about the nonsense Clint is claiming, and they’re wondering how anyone might believe the federal government is incorporated, when the Organic Act of 1871 clearly and repeatedly indicates the incorporation only applies to the MUNICIPAL government, and not the federal government.

      I don’t care if you are actually Napoleon, you’re still shoveling nonsense — and your methodology and theories are entirely unfounded.


  3. One addition to the above response… to say there are no private People in the United States (Washington D.C.) is to say there is no life there. It is all fiction, and its laws apply only to fictions of its own law. Citizenship is a status, which means person, and has no reference to a “Creation of God.” The People are an Act of God, U.S. citizenships are an act of state. This is the biggest difference between the States and the Nation (district). A public citizenship of the U.S. is spiritually dead, civilly alive. Fiction.



    • Clint, you start off with the statment, “to say there are no priviate people in the United States (Washington D.C.)”, but no one has said there are no private people there, in other words your statmenent is a strawman of your own fabrication.

      You also introduce the fallacy that the United States is Washington D.C., when D.C. is only the house of the federal government, and not the federal government itself. The local (municipal) government is in D.C., and governing D.C., whereas the federal government only deals with the nation’s foreign interests, although this has been corrupted by the federal government’s usurpation of land and laws within the States.

      More importantly, the distinction between Private and public, is one in which the individual is acting. An individual does not become wholly private simply by acting only in a private capacity, nor does an individual become wholly public by acting in a public capacity. When an individual is acting in the political arena, they are acting in a public capacity. When an individual is solely acting for those interests that do not interfere with any public interest, then they are acting solely in a private capacity.

      You say that, “it’s only fiction and its laws apply only to fictions iof its own law”, this is pere sovereign citizen nonsense, an undounded rationalization. First, you say “it’s only fiction” but od not clarify what it is that is only fiction. From this point of view, the only fiction (falshood) I’ve seen is your representation of what is private and what is public.

      Citizenship is nothing more and othing less than the publicly recognized membership in a given society. It is not enslavement. Contrary to your idication, citizen nowhere means person. A person is merely a single individual, and the reference involves no indication of citizenship. Being a “Creation of God” has no relevance to the consideration of citizenship, and is only the irrelevant introduction of sovereign citizens seeking yet another excuse to free themselves from any obligation to society.

      You claim that U.S. citizenship is an act of state, yet I am born in the country of parents who are citizens, and no act or law was ever written making me a citizen, as I am naturally a member of this society, a natural born citizen, being entirely indigenous to this society, and owning no allegiance to any other society.

      You then claim that “this is the biggest difference between the States and the Nation” and then clarify nation as (District), when nation has nothing whatsoever to do with district at all. It’s evident that this is just a tawdry attempt to tie the nation into municipal (district) government, when the two are entirely separate, and the only one that was incorporated was the municipal government of the District of Columbia, not the national (Federal) government.

      You have also not anywhere specified what it is that is the “biggest difference between the States and Nation”.

      You then make yet another non-sequitur statment of the public citizenship of the U.S. being spiritually dead, but civilly alive. I’ve got news for you, citizenship has nothing to do with spirituality. Furthermore, everyone who is a citizen of a State, is and has always been a Citizen of the United States throughout this country’s history, from the moment the colonies became independent States and part of the Union that is the United States. Citizenship in a single State, has never existed without a resulting citizenship in ALL States, as well as citizenship in the United States.

      Your ramblings are nothing but fictions themselves, creations of your own mind having no basis in or relevance to reality. You have preached to your own private choir for so long, that you believe these rantings actually make sense, when they the rantings of someone who has lost all reference to fact and reality and is dwelling in solely his own rationalization.


  4. I love how you show the addendum to the original comment but not the actual comment, and then comment on those with ad hominem and no sources. This is why I don’t waste time on people like you. You are not open to anything but your own belief system. I am showing only their sources not my own opinions. This is too strange for words. Reminds me of the “anarchist” attitude, the satanist, the adversary to source.


    • If you wanted the original comment posted first, then maybe you should not have taken such an enormous text dump with it, dumping materials not your own, providing no comment as to relevance from you as to how those materials relate to our disagreement, and including a whole host of things with no direct relevance at all, such as the definition of “Native” which did not have its source provided but was unmistakably take from wholly biased Progressive source given the fact that it felt compelled to not only give the definition of native, but also to state the terms of natural born citizen, and further indicate that those born overseas would also be natural born, when this is an inaccurate representation. That same definition also implied that citizen was the same as subject, which is entirely false, and something one would think even you could recognize.

      I gave you specific arguments as to why your claims were invalid nonsense. You have fundamental problems with word connotations, the significance of “terms of art”, the recognition of public vs private capacity,and even the significance of such a simple noun as “person”, and all of these are your own belief, with burden of proof being your own. I am not going to provide references to prove the legitimacy of our language and history.

      Exactly what sources could possibly be necessary, particularly for the guy who makes up his own words and history on the fly? Seriously, if you need support for anything I’ve indicated, just state specifically what you question, don’t whine about it. That’s what mature discussion is about.

      Your initial post here included an enormous and unnecessary dump of the involving the Organic Act of 1871, and its part in the creation of an independent municipal government solely for the District of Columbia, under a governor and board. None of that information you provided actually served your claims, and rather actually proved my own, but you then tried to twist that info on your own, the part of no reference, into being some sort of municipal government for the entire country. However the governor and board are offices held by known individuals, their authority and actions are known, and they involve themselves in nothing but the interests of the District of Columbia, and not the Federal government. There really should be no discussion on this issue at this point, by your own doing.

      Thus far you have entered into our entire interaction from the start, engaging in peppered ad hominem slurs, providing yourself as the sole authority or a method only you recognize, and having your ego and attitude write checks that your knowledge and ability cannot begin to cash. Seriously, who do you think you’re kidding here?

      You don’t waste time with people like me because you do not like people who know our history and the English language so well that they can recognize upfront that your claims and methods are corrupt and invalid nonsense. You imagine that you’re doing yourself a favor by avoiding these confrontations, but what you have actually done is insulate your untenable beliefs from valid criticism, and allowed yourself to waste far too much of your life with things that have no basis in any reality, and offer no possible benefit at all. Your word dissection method might be entertaining as board game, but it has no business being immortalized in a bound volume.

      I am open to things well beyond my beliefs system, and in fact have made startling discoveries in only the past month that have turned one aspect of my beliefs entirely on its head, and this is an issue so large that it would be the lead headline for a month in this and every other country. However here is not the place for that discussion.

      Unlike you, when I questioned what was going on with this country, I did not rationalize my own explanation at the start, but instead chose to understand our history and the founding principles. This did not involve idealization of any one of them, or this country itself, but rather the recognition that individually they all brought their own visions to the table that were problematic to Liberty. Madison, despite being given the honorific of Father of the Constitution, came to the Convention wanting to transfer the entirety of State sovereignty to the federal government under the Virginia Plan, thereby creating the very same Oligarchy we had fought to free ourselves from. Adams believed the office of President should be far more imperial. And Jefferson is perhaps the worst of them all: Jefferson professed an unreserved support for continual revolution, without any caveat whatsoever, and was forever incapable of recognizing the enormous difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution, even to the point of reducing mankind to an “original Adam and Eve”. It was Jefferson’s support for France that led to Washington’s cautions against Entangling Alliances in his Farewell Address, and led Adams to exclude Jefferson in the office of Vice President from protection of criticism under the Sedition ACT, because there was an overwhelming fear of a populist call for the expansion of the Napoleonic Wars into this fledgling nation. None of the founders were actually all that bright on their own, and every one of their perspectives had to be modified before being in line with what became the founding principles of this country.

      The problem is that you know none of this, and nonetheless reject its consideration even as you fabricate your own admitted Conspiracy of Words, that offers no possible benefit, results in no plan for the betterment of our condition, and has no basis in any actual fact whatsoever. You want references but your own theory has no reference to anything whatsoever. You’re an enormous hypocrite.

      You even have the audacity to accuse me of being an anarchist and satanist. You should be aware that Satan is known in Revelation as “The Accuser” the one who makes claims but never provides evidence. Thus far that would be your own modus operandi, continually making claims about what the Truth is, but never providing proof, and slandering any who might challenge him.

      You want references, I could follow your lead and dump reams of them directly into posts, and like you not expend any effort to indicate any relevance to the discussion. However absent that, why don’t you request what references you actually require.


  5. Case in point. You have not provided one source or citation at all. Just character assassination, attacking the messenger. I am not sure what your readers may get out of this thread, but let me be clear, I am being accused here of only offering primary source documentation without my own opinion on the subject as a bad thing, and the “accuser” has made dozens of claims without a shred of evidence to support it while accusing me strangely enough of same. This type of behavior is what is killing the alternative information circuit, and is the opposite of good or even half-way decent research and vetting of information. I feel like I’m the victim of a surreal practical joke where everything is backwards. I don’t honestly know what to say, and I cannot take this as a legitimate discourse. I hope your readers recognize this strange behavior, and still have some sanity left in them to demand primary sources instead of patriot mythology. Anyone here may contact me with dignity and respect if they have questions or have sourced contributions. But I refuse to take part in this fallacious rhetoric to no end with such an extraordinarily pervasive contrarian. I remember Walter Burien warned me about people who want to waste your time as a psy-op. This seems to fit the bill.

    I’m done. Good luck.


    • Clint, you have no such “case in point”, as I have repeatedly both provided references and referenced the flaws of your your approach directly, and have engaged in no sort of ad hominem “character assassination” at all. You seem to think that my harsh criticism if your invalid theories is a personal attack, when it is no such thing. I have not addressed you personally, nor your character at all.

      In fact this blog open reply to you has dozens of references and citations, inclusive of referencing the 14th Amendment discussion regarding “jurisdiction”, and you’ve referenced none of these in response at all. My every post has involved direct references to your argument. Given this, you either do not know what a reference is, or you are engaging in deliberate falsehoods and playing less-than-honest games.

      Take your original post here as example, that has yet to be released. At the onset of that post you state that, “Now that you have explained to us that the United States is indeed a corporation (Federal body politic) i.e. corpus in Latin, I’m not sure what it is that you need?” You recognize that the word “corporation” indicates the formation of a body, and then play jejune games asking me what I ‘need’.

      Then, in the very next paragraph you no longer recognize that the word “corporation” does not necessarily involve or imply any sort of incorporation under the law, and you then imply that the United States is a corporation just like the East India Company. The man who relies so heavily on abuse of dictionaries, suddenly refuses the fundamental definition of “corporation” used in both the definition of “United States” in Title 28 USC, and also used by Allen West in the interview with Judge Napolitano, and pretend that all use of “Corporation” implies legal incorporation, which is clearly not the case.

      And you play this juvenile game after deleting 3 of my posts, and after each deletion you demanded I restate what proof is sufficient to establish incorporation of the federal government under the law when I had already done so!

      The fact is the word “corporation” does not imply legal incorporation, and is used by both sources to indicate the creation of the federal government from the confederation of the several States, and nothing more. The federal government is literally the States forming of a body, corpus, from themselves – corporation, and this involves no incorporation whatsoever.

      Then in this response you go on into further blatant dishonesty claiming, “I am being accused here of only offering primary source documentation without my own opinion on the subject as a bad thing.” Seriously, you’re saying I accuse you of using original sources? Seriously, you’re that fundamentally dishonest, when I’ve never said anything of the sort?

      That is actually the exact opposite of what you’re being “accused” of. You don’t rely on any primary source material at all, or even fundamental word meanings, but instead deliberately, systematically and methodically engage in abuse of material, and words, in order to reach the preordained conclusion of what is solely your own opinion! Your claim that you use any primary source documentation, when you have no such primary source, and abuse words and references to distort relevance, and all to validate what is only your own prejudicial opinion, is therefore an outright lie.

      I have a novel idea for you: Why don’t you actually state YOUR OWN argument, and do so clearly and succinctly, indicating how this whatever evidence somehow proves federal incorporation, … rather than misrepresenting something I never said, which is commonly recognized as a flaw of argumentation, not to mention a dishonest tactic.

      The “alternative information circuit”, otherwise known as the Truther movement, has killed itself and any valid information, buy promoting superstition and ignorance. The so-called “Truth” promoted by this movement is commonly only elevated ignorance, in disregard of real facts. I’ve seen this in objective discussions involved in objective science with many popular Truther Youtubers, and even more Sovereign Citizen theory proponents.

      Keep in mind that, given the fact that you are claiming the theory that is novel and invalidated by anyone, yours is the obligation to prove your theory, providing those references, rather than mine to disprove it providing references. TO be blunt, your approach is so unfounded and unrecognized that there are no direct references to refute it. No one with any knowledge of lexicology or history takes these things seriously.

      You’re not providing any arguments with any actual basis, but rather providing a series of unproven claims, only vaguely supported by irrelevant representations, to present theories that are nowhere recognized, using methodologies that are similarly not recognized as anything but invalid.

      Even the most simple of proofs of how the federal government might have been incorporated, particularly for a guy who has a show “Corporation Nation”, turns in to a drawn out dance of jejune antics and no proof having been provided at all.

      What you reference as “patriot mythology” most people know as history. Your patriot mythology is actually your own prejudicial ignorance of this country, its history, and the Constitution, and your reference to the “patriot mythology” is a recognition of the bias to your invalid theories.

      You’re blessed with living in the only government in mankind’s history to be based on unalienable individual rights, and a limited government, and you’ve allowed yourself to be ignorant of this history and constitution, and instead have fabricated your own theory that it never applied to you, and is some sort of a big conspiracy of words from the onset. Well, that’s actually quite tragic, and the only remedy is for you to actually educate yourself, and not go to the same poisoned watering holes you’ve be getting all this nonsense from.

      In discussions you’ve indicated that the Preamble of the Constitution shows it only applies to the progeny of the founders, when the meaning of the word “posterity” is quite different than progeny, and is not limited to the founders direct offspring. Similarly you’ve stated that the Supremacy Clause indicates that the Laws and Treaties are invariably the supreme law of the land, when that’s not what it indicates at all. Those laws must first be “pursuant to” the Constitution, and those laws must be “under the authority of” the United States. As recognized by Madison, the authority is not given the federal government to overturn by treaty what they are prohibited from doing otherwise.

      The fact is that you do not even understand the fundamental principles of this country to even begin to dismiss it as your so-called “patriot mythology”. And yet you think you’re manipulation of word meaning now, is somehow superior to your ignorance of that history and constitution you’re glibly dismissing as mythology!

      What you are, Clint, is a less-than-honest snake oil salesman, except you recognize up front that you’re peddling a medicine (theory) that offers no cure, remedies no problems, and really has no basis in any fact at all. You’re just telling people what they want to hear and already knew: that their being victimized by government, and a convoluted conspiracy theory is a lot easier to swallow than learning the actual detailed facts and history.

      Yes, Yes, I have not posted your original comment yet. Why? Because it is obscenely long text dump, with 90% of it being just dumping references, without any indication from you how those references might support you (they do not), and the other 10% you engaging in a bunch of hand waving and irrelevant nonsense that does not constitute any sort of argument either. Basically my response has to consist of me teaching you how to make a valid argument, and provide an intelligent discussion, and I really have no desire to do that, nor do i have a desire to post what is essentially a misrepresentative and dishonest argument.


  6. Clint,

    This is a response to your original post here. I have not posted that because it was 6,486 words long, 11 single-spaced pages, consisting of a text dump of unnecessary material about the 1871 Act and you listing off your beliefs you references as important “terms” without evidence to support them, and you still did not provide proof of the federal government’s incorporation! Because of a person, Ri-chard, repeatedly posting sovereign citizen claims here, commonly without any evidence for them, I have had to enforce a policy that claims must be provide proof, particularly extraordinary claims. Sovereign citizens are notorious for not providing proof for their claims, as well as apparently never validating that their claimed sources actually support their assertions..

    If you believe that I have somehow misrepresented your original post, please consider clarifying your original points, otherwise I may relent and release your entire original post.

    Yes, I’m aware that you do not consider yourself a sovereign citizen, and recognize the term as being conflicted. However the problem with “sovereign citizen” is not the term “citizen” but rather that a society of individuals might be in any way allow each to be sovereign, and able to pick and choose what laws apply to them. You seem to imagine that you can bypass this conflict by claiming that you are not a federal citizen. However the idea that there every individual might be sovereign entirely6 conflicts with man being in any society, not just as “citizen”. The problem is sovereign individuals, not citizenship, but I suspect this distinction entirely escapes you. Your own ideology involves the rationalization that you and others are not obligated to recognize the terms of legitimate government, instead inappropriately elevating common law or Biblical principle to being some sort of overriding principle, when neither of these are even remotely applicable. The end result of your philosophy is the same thing as sovereign citizen philosophy, even if achieved by a backdoor convoluted rationalizations.

    You began by stipulating that I should agree to a series of beliefs you phrase as “terms”, which you apparently deem critical to any communication, yet none of these terms were provided with argument, and all of them are not only demonstrably false, but also irrational. A number of these terms can be easily disproved simply by referencing a dictionary, which you apparently declined to do, despite your predilection for referencing those dictionaries.

    Below I address some of the major claims you profess, but which are all seriously problematic:

    PRIVATE VS PUBLIC, “private people”

    Clint wrote: “The word State, when capitalized, means a private (foreign) People.”

    “Several States means private People (States). “

    I’ve noted from your broadcasts that you have a severely warped understanding of private vs public. Single individuals, or persons, may act in a public capacity or a private capacity, and neither becomes indelible to their nature. A woman may testify to the town council about an easement and be in a public capacity as she is representing the interests of the Nature Conservancy. That same woman may then testify about the effect of the easement on her own property, and be acting in a private capacity.

    The word State, capitalized or otherwise, has nothing whatsoever to do with a private capacity, or individual people in particular. The word State, when capitalized in the Constitution or government documents, is a proper noun, and as such represents a specific reference, in this case it is addressing one of the 50 states that comprise the union. Being political entities entirely of public political interest, those States are entirely public identities, having no private capacity to them, even by definition. . The private and public capacities of the individuals within the States are irrelevant to the States themselves being public. Even the inhabitants of the District of Columbia are capable of acting in both a public and private Capacity.

    Also, contrary to an assertion you will make later, being a citizen of the United States does not rob one of their private capacity, nor make them some sort of public enslaved asset. These beliefs are nothjing but pure fiction that are so far from having any rational basis that they can only be recognized as fantasy or superstition..

    At one point you declare that the United States is not a Republic, and don’t do based on the terms of a Republic, but rather based solely on your own curious recognition of Public and Private:

    Clint: “The United States, however, is not in any way a republic. It cannot be, for there are not private People in the United States, again meaning that no States (We, the People) are under the authority of United States.”

    Above you are applying what is solely your own inaccurate understanding of public and private, to result in the bizarre declaration that their are no private people in the United States, employing solely the circular logic of self-validating, self-fabricated beliefs in order to decide what is a Republic, when the definition of Republic does not involve any aspect of public versus private. Communist countries accurately represent themselves as a Republic, even in name, as they are literally “of the people”, but nonetheless there is very little privacy or individual rights to found in them.

    I’m quite certain that I’m in the United States, and that I am a private individual, a person, and I’m quite certain that you are as well. I cannot refrain from recognizing that your litmus test for “Republic” is ratether insane, as it has no rationality to it. However none of this touches on the fact that this Constitutional Republic is being subverted by government corruption.

    Your emphasis on this public/private distinction has no basis in any existing understanding or thought, and is so convoluted by the obvious intent to contrive support for preordained conclusions, that you have fabricated something grossly irrational – a false and corrupt fabrication, but this is true of your other tenets as well.

    Public and private just don’t mean what you want them to mean, and what does not lose any of that private capacity by recognizing they are citizens of the United States. Similarly, the denial of one’s United States citizenship, while claiming citizenship in any one of the 50 States, will still have that federal citizenship intact.

    Domestic vs Foreign, Not Domestic vs Private

    Clint wrote, “We are considered as domestics. The States (private People) are protected from us.What is considered domestic is that which pertains to the nation, the domicilium of the municipal corporation.”

    Domestic simply means that which is of this country, land or locality, and it is the opposite of foreign. You could have relied on a dictionary for this, which would invariably indicate something to the effect, “existing or occurring inside a particular country; not foreign or international.”

    While what is considered “domestic” does pertain to the nation, it also pertains to the State and locality as well, given that these are all domestic and not foreign. The phrase “domestic terrorism” indicates terrorism originating from within the country itself, rather than of foreign origin, and obviously does not mean it is terrorism originating from the nation, or federal government (though perhaps that should be considered).

    Then, most scurrilously, while giving your rendition of domestic, you try to insert a claim about the “municipal corporation”, when there is no such association. That “municipal incorporation” is solely local, applying only to the municipal government of the District of Columbia itself, and not applying to anything national. While that municipal government is certainly domestic, this does not rationally transfer to that municipal government being national in authority. Research shows that the actions of that D.C. Governor and Board only apply to the District of Columbia itself, and not the nation.

    Addressing these claims is tiresome, and like trying to keep a used car salesman honest, except this one tells you up front that there’s a conspiracy of words, and then immediately engages his own word fabrication. .(I’m beginning to see the true originator of your admitted word conspiracy now. )

    The inherent idea that “private persons” are not a part of the nation, is an absurdity born of nothing but a highly prejudicial rationalization which has no valid foundation. What troubles me is that people who support these beliefs actually believe themselves to be more informed and aware than those who do not. The result is that ignorance becomes entrenched by arrogance.

    Contrary to the last part of your statement, the corporation that is the United States, has nothing to do with any sort of legal incorporation. Furthermore, the incorporation of the municipal government of the District of Columbia, has nothing whatsoever to do with the federal government as a whole. These distinctions require recognition that words have varying connotations, with these dependent on context.

    There is no such thing as the municipal incorporation of the federal government. This is a false and irrational fabrication that some have contrived in response to the fact that there is no evidence of the federal government being incorporated.


    Clint wrote: ” As you alluded to above, the de jure (legitimate) People of each State confirm and ratify the de facto (illegitimate) nation, placing it commercially under the law of nations, not the constitution. Nothing is constitutional about it, nor does that word have any relevance to what is de facto (militarily enforced).

    I did not “allude” to any such thing about de jure and de facto.

    De Jure and De Facto are terms which apply to conditions where an existing original government, referenced as De Jure (of law), is replaced and displaced by what becomes the acting government, or De Facto. Where there is no physical, displacement of the government, there is no de jure government at all, it is simply overturned.

    These two terms have no associated indication of legitimacy. A de jure monarchy can easily be displaced by a de facto popular dictatorship from a revolution.

    More importantly, these two terms have no application to our condition or government whatsoever. Like it our not, our existing federal government is operating in a de jure capacity, being duly elected, which is irrelevant to the federal government’s illegitimate actions. Contrary to your indication, neither the people of each State, nor the States themselves, are “de jure” governments, as they have not been displaced, and are still operable.

    Contrary to your indication, the people of each State did not ever “confirm and ratify” an illegitimate federal government, but rather only ratified the limited terms of federal legitimacy detailed in the Constitution. However, if one dismisses the Constitution as corrupt, as you do, then they have no coherent terms by which to judge federal legitimacy, thereby having to invent an incoherent rationale on the fly, or speciously apply external rationales, such as common law or biblical law, when these have no relevance to this country’s terms. This all serves the ideal of the self-sovereign Freeman getting to pick and choose what laws he will recognize, an immature ideology which unavoidably would result in Anarchy, followed by tyrannous oppression.

    Sovereign citizen philosophers love to apply the terms de jure and de facto to our condition, imagining it makes them sound erudite and informed, when the misapplication of these terms only trumpets their ignorance.


    Contrary to your previous representation, above, the Law of Nations has nothing to do with “commercial” law, and is more accurately recognized now as International Law. Neither that International Law, nor commercial law, nor maritime law are in any way nefarious, nor are these legal jurisdictions impinging on this country’s principles. That Law of Nations, and commercial law, are not at odds with the Constitution, which you likewise dismiss as corrupt, but only when it too is inconvenient. The presentation of these each as bogeymen, when convenient, yet never with argument, is the intent to promote an ideologic agenda by abuse of the lowest common denominator – ignorance.


    Clint wrote : ” It must be understood here that a citizenship of the United States district is not a private citizen of any of the 50 States.”

    This Is all false. First, Citizen of the United States is not recognized by the “district” (of Columbia), which is solely local-municipal government, but rather on the federal national level.

    More broadly, citizens of the United States are, in fact, citizens of each and every state as well. We have never had separate citizenships for each State and another citizenship for the federal government. There has only been one (1) citizenship ever recognized from the creation of this country and the transition of those colonies to States, and that citizenship has always involved commensurate citizenship in each and every State, and thereby also citizenship in the United States.

    The United States came into existence with the Articles of Confederation, in which Article I identifies the the “stile” of this confederacy as, “The United States of America”. Article IV of that document provides that, “Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other State.” The result of this clause is that citizens of one State are immediately recognized to be citizens of each and every other State, or citizens of the United States.

    This same method clause was included in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, and is there referenced as the “Full Faith & Credit Clause”. The first naturalizationAct written by the U.S. Congress in 1790, idenfitied those born overseas to an American father as, “citizens of the United States.”

    Contrary to claims, “citizen of the United States” was not fabricated by the 14th Amendment, and is not a corruption of enslavement to a federal incorporation, but rather has existed from the moment this country came into existence.

    Clint wrote, ” The citizenships of the United States municipal corporation are not the private People of each State. The private States are “We, the People” in confederation, or what you refer to above as a series of republics in conspiracy (confederation/combination).”

    The municipal incorporation that occurred under the Organic Act of 1781 applied only to the municipal government of the District of Columbia, and has no citizenships associated with this, particularly no citizenship of the United States, which long predates the municipal incorporation. The existing citizens of the United States are every bit as “private” people as are those falsely consider themselves citizens a given State only. The States themselves are not “private”, and individuals, whevere they may be, are “We, the People” in confederation. There is no series of Republics, but rather the States are guaranteed by the Constitution of a Republican form of government. The States formed a confederation in which their union into one body, or corpus, became the United States federal government. There was no legal incorporation involved in this corporate union of States forming the fictional creature that is the federal government.

    Proof of Federal Incorporation:

    Thus far we have consider two pieces of evidences regarding whether or not they provide proof as to the legal incorporation of the federal government: 1) the definition for “United States” provided in Title 28 U.S. Code 3002 15(a), and 2) the terms of the Organic Act of 1871, which references the incorporation of the municipal government of the District of Columbia as part of the institution of a Governor and Board.

    Clint, in your first response, you acknowledged that the Title 28 definition of United States indicates the formation of a “coporation” or body from a confederation of the States. You then preceded to ignore this recognition, and pretend that the word “corporation” might still imply a legal incoropration, and claimed this was done by “Congress”, despite no evidence of this ever having occurred.

    You then proceeded to provide and enormous text dump of a description of the acts to incorporate the municipal government of the District of Columbia, all of which supported my indications. Then, without any evidence or rationale to do so, you simply assume that, the “municipal corporation” of District of Columbia is “called the United States” and serves as “seat of commercial (illegitimate/specifically non-constitutional) operations in government.”

    If this is what you imagine constitutes “research” then it should be observed that no legitimate research has actually occurred, with the exception of that seeking to use anything possible to bolster false claims.

    If such an incorporation of the United States federal government ever occurred, then please provide the articles of incorporation, and the corporate bylaws for this incorporated status. There is no such evidence, nor evidence of Congress having incorporated the federal government.

    There is no evidence that the United States federal government is incorporated, and indeed such an incorporation would serve no purpose, as the federal government would gain no privilege or immunity it did not already have.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s