3 “Super” States – The City of London, The State of New Columbia & The Vatican

Please Listen to:  Introduction to “Liberty Defined” (2011) by Ron Paul

What does this mean to democratic and representative forms of government which are wholly made irrelevant by shadow “super states”?  These shadow super states govern all financial matters including the MF Global and AIG collapses, the repeated TARP bail outs and much more?  Are transactions in these “super states” by contract immune from local, state and even federal laws?  SEE:  D.C., London and Vatican City: Do they rule the world?  THE ANSWER TO THIS IMPORTANT QUESTION DEVOLVES UPON THE “KNOWING” AND “UNKNOWING” APPLICATION OF THIS ANCIENT LEGAL PRINCIPLE OF LEX FORI TO A HUMAN BEING, CASE OR CONTROVERSY.

LEX FORI, practice. The law of the court or forum.   2. The forms of remedies, the modes of proceeding, and the execution of judgments, are to be regulated solely and exclusively, by the laws of the place where the action is instituted or as the civilians uniformly express it, according to the lex fori.  Story, Confl. of Laws, Sec. 550; 1 Caines’ Rep. 402; 3 Johns. Ch. R. 190; 5 Johns. R. 132; 2 Mass. R. 84; 7 Mass. R. 515; 3 Conn. R. 472; 7 M. R. 214;
1 Bouv. Inst. n. 860.   A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.

The City of London

City of London – BBC Documentary  The City of London – Money and Power 1 of 2 – BBC Documentary

Facts asserted in the films:
  • – London City is Run by and belongs to Bankers and Merchants.
  • – It is separated from the Royal Territory by a Pillar with a dragon on it.
  • – Even the Queen must ask permission to enter that territory.
  • – The Royalty borrow Money for their Rule or Conquests from the Merchants.
  • – It is a symbiotic relationship. Merchants need the Royalty to mesmerize the people and keep them hoping.
  • – The City runs on Greed, Gambling and Competition.
  • – Financial weapons of mass destruction are created, accepted and used.
  • – You Come to the City to Live by the sword and die by the sword.
  • – If you Lose, there is a door, you can Leave.
  • – This is the way it has been for Centuries and will always be.

The State of New Columbia – Created in 1982 – Operating Since

Look at this Website dedicated to supporting the “admission” of the State of New Columbia.  Ironically, the State of New Columbia was brought into existence in 1982 and ratified its constitution in 1987.  It has been operating since that ime under this flag.  Neighbors United for DC Statehood. [See actual State of New Columbia Constitution below, together with a law review article on it.]

Source for following quote on the State of New Columbia.  http://www.dc.gov

A “Constitution for the State of New Columbia (as the new state will be called),” was approved by duly elected delegates from the District of Columbia on May 29, 1982, and adopted by a vote of the people of the District of Columbia in an election held November 2, 1982. The Constitution and a petition for Statehood was transmitted by the Mayor of Washington, DC to the Congress of the United States on September 9, 1983.

By will of the people, as a self-governing body, the State of New Columbia has been operating since 1982.

Was recently proposed HR 265 actually passed and held back from public disclosure?  The following appears at this site and leads the reader to believe HR 265 was proposed for a vote on 1/12/2011.  Nothig else can be found on it other that it was supposedly referred to Committee.

SOURCE:  Official Summary   WWW.OPENCONGRESS.ORG

1/12/2011–Introduced.New Columbia Admission Act – Sets forth procedures for admission into the United States of the state of New Columbia. Requires the Mayor of the District of Columbia to:
(1) submit to the eligible voters propositions for statehood and adoption of a State Constitution; and
(2) issue a proclamation for the first elections to Congress of two Senators and one Representative of New Columbia. Requires the President, upon adoption of such propositions and certification of such elections, to issue a proclamation announcing the results and admitting New Columbia into the Union. Provides for conversion of District government offices to state offices. Provides that New Columbia shall consist of all territory of the District as of the enactment of this Act, excluding land within specified metes and bounds that shall remain the District of Columbia and that shall include the principal federal monuments, the White House, the Capitol Building, the Supreme Court Building, the federal executive, legislative, and judicial office buildings located adjacent to the Mall and the Capitol Building, and certain military property. Prohibits New Columbia from imposing taxes on federal property except as provided by Congress. Maintains the applicability to New Columbia of current District laws and continues pending judicial proceedings. Maintains:
(1) the District of Columbia as the seat of the federal government, and
(2) the federal government’s authority over military lands and specified other property. Requires each state that is the last place an individual resided before residing in the District of Columbia to permit such individual to vote in federal elections by absentee ballot. Sets forth a rule for expedited consideration of a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution to repeal the 23d amendment (which provides for the appointment of electors for President and Vice President for the District).

SOURCE:  For Full Text of H.R. 265: New Columbia Admission Act  WWW.GOVTRACK.US

Current Sponsors of the New Columbia Admission Act Are:

H.R.265
Latest Title: New Columbia Admission Act
Sponsor: Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC] (introduced 1/12/2011)      Cosponsors (14)
Latest Major Action: 2/8/2011 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia, Census and the National Archives .


COSPONSORS(14), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:     (Sort: by date)Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] – 12/15/2011
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] – 11/30/2011
Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9] – 11/30/2011
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] – 11/3/2011
Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] – 10/6/2011
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] – 10/6/2011
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] – 10/21/2011
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] – 11/16/2011
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] – 11/3/2011
Rep Polis, Jared [CO-2] – 10/21/2011
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] – 11/29/2011
Rep Scott, Robert C. “Bobby” [VA-3] – 11/29/2011
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] – 10/14/2011
Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] – 11/3/2011

____________________________________________________

Here is an actual copy of the 1987 Enacted Constitution for the State of New Columbia

Among other things, notice the substantial change in wording to the Ninth Amendment:

K.  Unenumerated Rights and Self-Execution
Section 23. Unenumerated Rights [of the People]. The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights possessed by the individual or limitations upon the government shall not be construed to discourage nor deny other rights or limitations not enumerated.

The Proposed New Columbia Constitution:  Creating a ‘Manacled State’ ” by Courts Oulahan.  The American University Law Review, 32:635

About the Authors:  Member, District of Columbia and Ohio Bars. B.S., 1942, Haverford College; J.D., 1948, Yale Law School. The author, a native Washingtonian, has practiced law in the District of Columbia
since his graduation from law school. In 1981, he was elected as a delegate to the District of Columbia Statehood Constitutional Convention. Subsequently he participated in the drafting of the proposed New Columbia Constitution, and served as a member of the Judiciary Committee.  He was one of two Convention delegates who voted against the document as drafted, while four
abstained.

The author was assisted in the preparation of this Article by Bernard J. Sussman, Esq., a 1979 graduate of the Washington College of Law, The American University, and by Worth C. Hicks, a paralegal assistant. Appreciation is expressed for the assistance rendered by the staff of The American
University Law Review.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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