30 little known facts about America

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 05:31 PM

Originally posted by Solarskye
I want more proof that these "known facts'" are indeed facts or just more BS.

They are all true, as far as I know. I've been posting link-sources & other evidence to back up most of those truths: In fact, I don't have source links for each & every one of those truths directly, but many of those source links that I have posted will lead to others that tell the more of the story of how unlawful, illegal & illegitimate the US government actually is.

About the only thing I cannot confirm with reasonable certainty as fact is whether the Vatican/Church actually owns/runs everything...Evidence on points related to that are a bit sketchy. I don't have any specific references that I have already read bookmarked or anything either...Except this one that I consider to be opinion rather than fact because it's excerpted from an interview with the author of a book. I haven't really spent much research time on that particular point.

I can't list all of my sources & links here, but look for my past Threads & Posts in my Profile to see what I've been posting & where the links are...I've been doing this for some months now, so you'll have to go back quite a ways to cover what I don't link to from this post. Be prepared for a looong read...It took me several months to find & read what I've been researching. Most of my research has actual basis in the Law & how it's (mis)applied on a widespread, consistent basis.

Originally posted by Lebowski achiever
Number three is correct (up to a point)

Yeah, up to a point...The US has a Treasury, but there's no gold or silver left in it. It was all paid to the Fed Res to (unsuccessfully) pay off the federal deficit decades ago & it all got shipped & banked overseas. JFK tried to wean us off the FRN's & get gold/silver-backed currency back into circulation...See Executive Order 11110 to learn more about it. It's never been repealed, but it's been completely ignored by every President since JFK. As a side note, every time you "have to" pay taxes to the IRS, you may notice that your check won't go to the US Treasury...The IRS instructs you to "Make check payable to" the IRS itself. This means that whatever you send them illegally goes somewhere else besides the Treasury: It goes to the Fed Res & then to the IMF.
That's why the US is using the "Debt-currency" represented by Federal Reserve Notes...Each FRN is a certificate of debt to the Fed Res (& the IMF) & is really nothing more than "corporate scrip."

Originally posted by nunya13
Need to research this more but I noticed that some IRS publications do cite "IMF" but this is the Individual Master File.

That particular IMF refers only to help specifically define what's in the IRC (Internal Revenue Code) itself. There is indeed an organization called the International Monetary Fund that's connected with the World Bank...But that's not the same as the IMF mentioned in the IRC. This is one of their tricks to nail you...They even "redefine" the actual words under the Codes to make you think of the "common-usage" word to mean the same thing. They're also tricky in the use of using separate definitions of the same word, depending on how they use capital letters & lower-case letters.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
It may be called...We're Running Out of Time? I feel like thats it, if not, I'm sorry to mislead you.

Actually, you're right about the thread you mentioned. There's also another thread here that has a lot of related info.

Originally posted by sdrawkcabII
Can anyone lay any real substantial evidence about these "facts". Because I cannot believe something if there is doubt and question. The people who do know...I need to see why you know. Why this is real. What makes it proof.

You'll find evidence & proof aplenty by reading those two threads just linked above...They in turn link to a whole plethora of information.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
"16) The King of England financially backed both sides of the Revolutionary War.
(Treaty of Versailles- July 16, 1782
Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80) "

This is inaccurate.
The Rothschild international banking cartel formed in the 1770s in London, England financed both sides of not only the Revolutionary War but BOTH sides of every war America has ever fought. Research and know the truth. Then act accordingly.

This is true. You're basically saying here that it was the Rothchilds giving backing to the King...In which case both statements are very closely related. You just went up one more step of the money-ladder.

Originally posted by network dude
So our choice is to be worried that our entire existance is an illusion and we are all slaves to the elite, or we can go on like we have been and be happy. Have I got that right or am I missing something?
One of my favorite sayings is "Beer, proof that God wants us to be happy"

No, it doesn't sound like you're missing anything...But at least you have a start on learning the "hows & whys" of modern enslavement. You still have your Freedom of Choice to ignore the info.
That quote you posted was by Benjamin Franklin...

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
When the IRS gets on your case, you are guilty until proven innocent. The burden of proof is on you, and it can take years and will bankrupt the average citizen.

It will bankrupt you if you don't understand the legal processes actually involved. The IRS wants you to initiate court action against them. That makes them Defendant & you the Plaintiff, which is how the burden of proof falls on you: And by the 5th Amendment, you can't even subpoena their records for your case!

You need to use Admiralty Jurisdiction in a District Court to fight them...Admiralty Jurisdiction is very limited & you may (with proper knowledge of the law) use that jurisdiction against them. More details are discussed here, but it doesn't show up until later in the thread...I needed the time to do the research while the thread got longer...

Originally posted by shmoo
...friend of the family who drove without a driver's license, never paid taxes, etc. every time she was taken to court she was able to prove that the laws under the constitution did not apply to her...

Actually, you have that backwards...The Constitution does indeed apply to her! It's just that, in Common Law (Article 3 Court), she was able to prove that they were using Statutory Laws against her, which is how she was able to win...Statutory law only applies to the federal government officers, corporations directly contracted to the federal government & individuals who (even unknowingly) sign contracts with the federal government or live or work as US citizens outside of the boundaries of the 50 States.

Let me guess...That friend of the family had a Record of Live Birth filed at the County Records Office, instead of a registered Birth Certificate & did not have a Social Security Card? Those are two of the (individual's) contracts that make you obliged to abide by Statutory Law. If you don't know how to answer this question, why not talk to that friend & ask (If you can)? Evidently, she already knows at least as much, if not more, about this than I do...

Originally posted by fbipeeperjr
To be honest about all this, it comes down to guns. Sounds simple and stupid, but let me explain why. I know people who have "removed" themselves from the system.. went to court to get rid of S.S... that kinda stuff. Unfortunately, many of these people also are tax cheats, so you sure get scrutinized when you do such things.

Some of the groups that you run into are tax cheats, in that they also want you to pay them money to learn the system...And then don't pay taxes on the business they run under that premise. In my researches, I stay away from those groups & concentrate on those who do know what they're talking about & they are not tax cheats...They only research the truth about who exactly is liable for lawfully-imposed taxation & adjust their lifestyles to not fit into Statutory liability. The difference is subtle, but very tangible...They don't protest against lawful taxes, but question how the IRS illegally "stretch their true jurisdiction" to include everyone who falls outside of their jurisdiction. They still wind up getting "labeled" as tax protesters because that's how the system works to denigrate the People & try to devalue the laws that protect the real Freeman in society.

The main key (under the Law) is that everyone who wants or needs the government to provide "benefits" for them has to enter into contract with the government to do so...In which case, such people "volunteer" to also abide by whatever Statutory regulations they wish to impose. Those who "enter into contract" with the government are literally "begging" for the government to take care of that responsibility for them. Conversely, someone who wants to live their life free of such contractual obligation & fully exercise their inherent Rights as defined under Constitutional Law (Common Law), they must also abide by the inherent personal responsibility to take care of themselves.

---------------Continued Below---------

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 05:32 PM
-------------Concluded From Above-------

Originally posted by eaganthorn
Interesting post, I look forward to thses arguments made in court as a defense.
I wonder how that will turn out?

People have already done so, by the thousands so far, and seem to be doing quite well. In order for the whole crooked government to either change for the better or collapse under its own weight, people like this need to number in the millions. But it takes preparation, knowledge & persistence: The fight to exercise your Rights is indeed just that...You have to be active & know what you're doing. Any show of silence or acquiescence in a courtroom will only indicate that you've given up...And then you lose 'em. They will try to drag you into court again & again, but your persistence will win out eventually & they'll give up.

Originally posted by spuddyboy
come on. no one owns nothing in America, even their children? Some people really do believe anything. So you are saying the Government, or whoever, can legally go to someones home and take away their child? sure. Good thing you guys have guns then isn't it!

Actually, it's true...They can do it legally but not lawfully: Yes, there is a difference in the meanings of those terms. If the children have their Birth Certificates registered. Those parents registered their children with their Birth Certificates. By Statutory law, the parents become nothing more than "babysitters." If the "child protection services" don't deem the parents to be worthy babysitters, they come & take the children away...And it's all due to the "contract" implied by the child's "registration" with the Birth Certificate.

Originally posted by iceofspades
I can provide some more information about some of the points. The video and its points appear to be a copy of what is written here:
www.natural-person.ca... (pdf)

Yep. that's one of the links inserted into one of the other ATS threads I've already linked in this post. That particular PDF isn't very well organized & is more tailored to Canadians. But the Canadian Statutory structure is very close to the Statutory construction used in America. I've found a "repeat" of that PDF that's been better organized & tailored better to suit Americans, right over here.

Originally posted by nunya13
So basically
human capital another term for labor.

Right. But the Supreme Court has upheld on numerous occasions that the term "income" refers to profit or gain derived from the source. Labor=Human Capital=Source. If you put some of your "source" into stocks or bonds, for example, your principal investment is still not taxable, but any profit or gain derived from that is liable for tax.

As such, the Supreme Court has also upheld that one of the Natural Rights upheld by Common Law (ie: Constitution) is "to engage in any lawful occupation to earn the means for living." As such the so-called "income taxes" are not "income" & are not liable to taxation. Until someone "contracts" with the IRS (on the tax return forms) & declares (under penalty of perjury) it as such...By listing their basic payroll check amounts as "income."

Originally posted by vatoloko
Free your mind and open your eyes.

Actually, I look at it more like this: Open your eyes to free your mind. Free your mind & your @$$ will follow.

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 05:42 PM

25) WE ARE SLAVES AND OWN ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. NOT EVEN WHAT WE THINK ARE OUR CHILDREN. (Tillman vs. Roberts 108 So. 62, Van Koten vs. Van Koten 154 N.E. 146, Senate Document 43 & 73rd Congress 1st session, Wynehammer v. People 13 N.Y. REP 378, 481)

Here's what Senate Document 43 & 73rd Congress 1st session says:

svpvril.com (not sure why I found it here, just the first place I went to)

Text: U.S. Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congress, 1st Session (1934), to wit: ³The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere "user" and use must be in acceptance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.²

As far as it owning our children in reference to the court case cited as evidence (Tillman vs. Roberts 108 So. 62) this is EXTREMEMLY disturbing (I really suggest you read this essay in the link I provided):


For example, according to Tillman v. Roberts (108 So. 62, 214 Ala. 71), "the primary control and custody of infants is with the government." According to Nichols v. Nichols (Civ.App., 247 S.W. 2d 143), in its capacity of "parens patriae," government may assume direction, control, and custody of children, and delegate such authority to whom they see fit.

(I had to type that in because it's in pdf forn, I couldn't copy/paste)

I suppose this makes sense, if we really did own our children, they couldn't just come and take them from us no matter what the circumstances.

I'd like to state what I found on the other citations of evidence but it seems that this list of "facts" is widely circulated on the net and it is very hard to find the original instances of these codes, court cases documents, etc. without finding only sites which carry this "fact" list.

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 05:52 PM

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer

Originally posted by nunya13
So basically
human capital another term for labor.

Right. But the Supreme Court has upheld on numerous occasions that the term "income" refers to profit or gain derived from the source. Labor=Human Capital=Source. If you put some of your "source" into stocks or bonds, for example, your principal investment is still not taxable, but any profit or gain derived from that is liable for tax.

As such, the Supreme Court has also upheld that one of the Natural Rights upheld by Common Law (ie: Constitution) is "to engage in any lawful occupation to earn the means for living." As such the so-called "income taxes" are not "income" & are not liable to taxation. Until someone "contracts" with the IRS (on the tax return forms) & declares (under penalty of perjury) it as such...By listing their basic payroll check amounts as "income."

First, let me say that I love your posts. You always do your research and back everything up...

This may be slightly off topic but I wanted to comment on this whole paying taxes on income thing.

See...this is so hard for me, not to comprehend but to want to fight it because I work in an accounting firm. A very small one owned by my boss and I share our own personal office with 4 other employees. We do accounting, bookkeeping, payroll (!!), and *dun-Dun-DUN* TAXES!!

I fully, 100% believe that taxing our income is absolutely not legal due to the exact reason you laid out. This isn't unearned income. Earning this income isn't a priviledge, like you said it is a RIGHT! But also like you said, listing my paychecks as income automatically traps me in this. (Kinda like saying yes to the officer who asks to search your car when he had no right to even ask but you said yes so all bets are off). And yeah, maybe I could just get my this by just not filing a return, but they take money out of my paychecks anyway. I would never get that money back.

Here's the kicker, I could NEVER ask my boss to stop withholding taxes from my check. She's a CPA and knows what the IRS will do to her AND me!! I just wish I knew how to get around this.

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 06:01 PM

Originally posted by eaganthorn
Interesting post, I look forward to thses arguments made in court as a defense.
I wonder how that will turn out?

Not too good.
Idiot Legal Arguments: A Casebook for Dealing with Extremist Legal Arguments
By Bernard J. Sussman, JD, MLS, CP

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:08 PM
Howdy Pauligirl

Ah a light of reason - I know that name from some other site?

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:23 PM

Originally posted by shmoo
about twenty years ago there was a friend of the family who drove without a driver's license, never paid taxes, etc. every time she was taken to court she was able to prove that the laws under the constitution did not apply to her. supposedly, the constitution only applies to the "united states" which legally only covers washington d.c. Sounds strange, but she won every court case. Unfortunately, I was only about 13 at the time so I don't remember the parts that she made me read.

no way this is true, sounds like a family urban legend. Please site the case name so we can look it up. thanks in advance.

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:24 PM
Funny, I don't feel like a slave. Last time I checked, I can decide to stop working any time I want. I'm free to choose to do whatever I want for a living, as long as I have the skills. Nobody beats me or tries to sell me or anything like that if I stop working.

And of course, I receive a paycheck for my services. And maybe some people will tell me, "It's fake money, issued from thin air and borrowed from China!" And yet, I can take that money into a store and get whatever I want with it. I can buy clothing with it, food, electronics, toys, or anything else on the shelves.

I can even buy property with that money. And according to this source, I can't "own property." Oddly enough, if I buy that property than at any point I can call the police and have them come and arrest anyone on my property for trespassing. Yet those same police aren't here to help me?

Frankly, if I had the nerve to call myself a "slave" - or for anyone else to call me or 99.999999999 percent of the people in the U.S. a "slave" - it would be an insult and a disservice to anyone who ever actually was one.

And on a final note, screw the Pope. He can sit in his big castle and claim to own the whole world through "conquest" all he wants, but that doesn't make it true. Pretty much every religious leader makes the exact same claim. Just because a bunch of white Europeans recognized the "rules of conquest" 300 years ago doesn't mean they still really apply.

Oh, and there was a guy who claimed ownership of the moon awhile back too. He actually sold some of the moon property. All of his acts were technically backed by international law, but I'm sure nobody's really going to recognize it.

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:27 PM
reply to post by danielsil18

your post title was 30 facts about America. a fact is supposed to be true. so how can you now post this line saying you don't know if it is true?

like the guy a few post up said. i don't know if they are true or not, but America sure beats the heck out of any other place to be from.

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:39 PM

Originally posted by phineasJwhoopie

like the guy a few post up said. i don't know if they are true or not, but America sure beats the heck out of any other place to be from.

I really have to point out the flaw I always see in this "rationality".

If some girl was being beaten by her husband every day would you tell her, "Hey, at least your not being raped everyday like the girl down the street."?

Just because it's may not be as bad as other places doesn't mean we can't expect for it to be better than it is.

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:48 PM
reply to post by mattifikation

I think the point of this is that when IT hits the fan all these things that have been set into place will come into full effect.

It's like when you are setting up a domino effect. You have to be oh so careful not to knock one down before your finished setting them all up or it's not going to work out how you want it and you'll have to start it all over agian.

However, after all the dominos are properly in place it is only then that you can knock them all down to get the full effect.

Tryannical governments know that they can't just put some guy into power and he will just suddenly put us all under martial law, let the banks take all

our money, take dissidents to secret prisons without expecting the populace to fight back hard.

I'm sure you've heard it time and time again but we are all frogs in boiling water. Right now, the temperature is tolerable (it used to be just right) but it will start getting uncomfortable and before we know it it will be too late to rectify our situation.

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:55 PM
reply to post by danielsil18

The title should read SIX truths and a bunch of suppositions and inferential implications.

I've researched much of what you listed but some of it I think is misinterpreted so I'll have to verify. Here is my list of what I can confirm from my own previous research and what is unconfirmed, irrelevant, or not true:

1. confirmed
2. confirmed
3. confirmed
4. unconfirmed
5. unconfirmed
6. unconfirmed
7. unconfirmed
8. incorrect - it is a court of Equity also called an "admiralty court" or an "administrative court" - the courts provided for in the Constitution are courts of "Common Law" and of Equity.
9. incorrect - they are judges
10. unconfirmed
11. unconfirmed
12. confirmed
13. unconfirmed
14. partially correct - once you pay off the mortgage you will own it because you will take possession of the Deed - but the way the loans are structured a person now-a-days will probably never pay off the loan
15. unconfirmed
16. TRUE
17. not true
18. not true
19. not true
20. not true
21. unconfirmed
22. irrelevent
23. irrelevent
24. delusional
25. only partially true
26. not true
27. not true
28. true
29. unconfirmed
30. unconfirmed


[edit on 4-9-2008 by euclid]

[edit on 4-9-2008 by euclid]

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 08:43 PM
I think a few of them are probobly correct like about the pope I wonder if the pope can really abolish any law into the united states if these are true we may be in more trouble then we think.

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 10:11 PM
Okay I just made a spot check of one item. IRS publication 6209? What is that? The IRS site doesn't even mention having that publication nor a form of that number. Sorry, didn't read all the responses. Just want to say if I chose one of the 30 subjects at random and it didn't pan out, what am I to think of the rest of them?

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 10:30 PM
Claim #1) The IRS is not a U.S. Government Agency. It is an agent of the IMF.

Here is a good, detailed debunking site I found related to tax protesters and taxation issues. On this particular question, the FAQ writer says:

Tax protesters also like to cite a pleading (not a court opinion) that the government once filed in which the government denied that the IRS was an “agency” of the United States. That pleading has to be read in context. Someone had sued the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice filed an answer which denied “that the Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the United States Government” but admitted “that the United States of America would be a proper party to this action.” The government therefore admitted that the actions of the IRS were the actions of the United States and that the United States is responsible for the actions of the IRS, but that the lawsuit should be against the United States and not the IRS. ... The action of the court in substituting the United States government for the IRS actually confirms (and not denies) that the IRS is part of the United States government. Why else would a lawsuit against the IRS be changed to a lawsuit against the United States?

and cites Diversified Metal Prods., Inc. v. T-Bow Co. Trust, 78 AFTR 2d 5830, 5832, n. 3, 96-2 USTC ¶50,437 at 85,462, n. 3

In other words, the IRS is a part of the United States government but was not eligible to be sued in the case that is cited. The appropriate defendant was found to be the U.S. Government - evidence that the IRS is an agency of the U.S. Government. Furthermore, the citation is to a paper filed by the attorneys and not to a decision.

This site has legal citations debunking a lot of what's come up in this thread, including:
On labour as a natural right

As far as the "agent of the IMF" part goes, as near as I can figure they cite Public Law 102-391 as evidence. This is an appropriations bill for fiscal year 1993 which provides funds to give to the IMF. By this logic, I am an agent of the homeless guy on the subway I gave a buck to today. Public Law 102-391 was originally called H.R.5368 in the 102nd Congress. A summary
can be found here.

thomas.loc.gov... is a great resource for researching legislation; it's the Library of Congress's digital record of all Senate and the House bills, etc.

Okay, #1 is a lie.

EDIT: minor additions and a warning. Some of the claims made in this list have been specifically determined to be frivolous grounds for legal action or tax protesting and subject to a $5000 penalty. I have no idea what the case law on that fine is, but if you plan on protesting income tax by not filing based on these claims, get a good lawyer!

EDIT #2:

Claim #2 doesn't really need much discussion. It's true; the IMF is "an institution in the United Nations system." (from the IMF website, here

[edit on 9/4/08 by americandingbat]

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 10:45 PM

Originally posted by Hanslune
Howdy Pauligirl

Ah a light of reason - I know that name from some other site?

Could be.

All depends on where you have been.

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:07 PM

Originally posted by Dewm0nster

Originally posted by vatoloko
Do you want to know a couple more facts about America?
Most Americans are blind fools and if they aren't fools they are truly evil.
It is unbelievable to see how many blind fools are going to vote for a professional murderer, and they are proud of it, they are using the fact that MCcain killed people to try to win your vote. He is proud to be a professional murderer. That is called false pride. If you think that a soldier is a hero than you are truly blind and truly lost, or you are truly evil. Most Americans are blind to true evil. They make you believe that America is the greatest country in the world, but America has attacked for more countries than any other country on earth. They used the atomic bomb against humans, great country. They lied to you, brainwashed you to get your support to attack other countries, great country. They tried to dumb you down, enslave you, enslave your mind, brainwash you, waste your time, keep you busy doing what does not matter the most, misdirect you, mislead you and yet some fools believe that America is the greatest country in the world. These are simply a couple of examples but I can write a whole bible revealing Americas evil actions. Free your mind and open your eyes.

So, soldiers who fought in WWII to stop Hitler aren't heroes?
Canadian forces providing relief to other nations aren't heroes?
Soldiers have a job to do. It isn't pretty, or fun- It isn't safe, or easy. But they do it to make a living, to provide for their families, and keep their nations safe.
A soldier can be a hero.
A soldier can be a damn good hero.

No, they are not heroes, they are brainwashed murderers with false pride. Why can't we think more intelligent and beat them in a intelligent positive way. It is pretty, fun, and it's safe, and it can be easy if you change your way of thinking. What I am about to say may sound like science fiction, but why don't we develop a weapon that makes them unconscious and when they wake up, they wake up in a jail cell. Or work on some time machine to prevent disasters, or work on some device to stop the time, or like the aliens do on TV, use a flash of light and the rockets don't function anymore. We could have developed those kind of weapons a long time ago if we weren't mislead, enslaved, brainwashed, dumbed down, and kept busy doing what does not matter the most. I know that it's easy become negative but it takes a good man and a REAL GENIUS to think and move in the opposite direction. And you are right, "soldiers" can be a damn good hero but not the kind of soldiers you are thinking about. There are more powerful weapons than lethal weapons. They think that they are keeping their nation safe, but haven't you heard of the law of karma? The fact is America is evil, most Americans are blind fools and if they aren't fools they are truly evil. There are other ways to beat evil people.

[edit on 4-9-2008 by vatoloko]

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:13 PM
I'm sure many of these can be verified as true legal precedents. But that's not the same as current legal reality. Judges aren't obligated to follow legal precedent. And there's no guaruntee that the application of the law is consistent or logical.

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:58 PM
Then let it be known and clear...I have declared independence from any national or international or galactic, etc. sovereignty.

(in regards to #30 - being human capital)

They will find when they go to count, they are going to come up a few short.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 12:09 AM

Originally posted by keeb333
Hey, just FYI, CFR in this context does NOT refer to the Council on Foreign Relations, but to the Code of Federal Regulations, which are the rules applied in the interpretation of statutory law. While not laws themselves, they have the defacto effect of legislation in that they are requried to be followed in certain dealings with governmental departments. For example, Title 37 CFR sets forth the rules regarding the Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Laws found in 35 U.S.C. The rules are basically an extension and clarification of the Laws.

Here is a link to the text of the rule: edocket.access.gpo.gov...

Hey, thanks for that link! I need to read more of these CFRs. I was going over the one in the link you provided and something really stood out as exceedingly strange:

(2) Birth registration document. SSA may enter into an agreement with officials of a State, including, for this purpose, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and New York City, to establish..

They mention officials of each State then explicitly enumerate the territories and Washington D.C. because they are not States. The document lists no other American city other than D.C. which we all know is not under any state's jurisdiction. Doesn't that wording imply that New York City is not part of New York state?


new topics
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in