Your information is correct. There are people promoting the "US Corp" narrative, and it is very unlikely.
The statute you cited is the correct statute, but nobody seems to want to read the ACTUAL law. Instead, they want to believe what they want to believe.
This is no different than refusing to find out about the true facts of Covid, face masks, etc.
This movement should be about research and facts, not make believe.
There is another issue with this law, and that is that it created the office of "governor" for the District of Columbia." DC does not have a governor, to my knowledge. It only has a mayor. That right there should be a red flag that something is not right.
I have read that this statute was either modified or repealed a few years later, but I don't have a cite for that.
The Statutes at Large are a problem because it is nearly impossible to wade through all the laws on any particular subject.
That's why they created the United States Code -- it is an index by subject matter for the Statutes at Large. But if a statute was repealed, good luck finding the original anywhere. It is in there somewhere, but like finding a needle in a haystack.
Regardless, if anyone can show who the Governor of DC is, then they might have a point. Otherwise, THINK FOR YOURSELF.
Now, having said all that, there is no question that there are individuals who, over time, created laws that falsely hint that jurisdiction exists within the states when in fact the law only applies to federal territory (which today is DC and a few islands -- Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, Guam, etc.).
In 1871, there were a lot more territories that belonged to the feds. Today, not so much. They DID obfuscate the facts of federal jurisidiction, but that doesn't really matter because the Constitution has not changed.
Anything done in violation of the Constitution is VOID.
BUT ...
We the People must enforce it. The government employees (for the most part) will not. To enforce it, one must learn it. To learn it, one must start by READING it. How many Americans have?
Your information is correct. There are people promoting the "US Corp" narrative, and it is very unlikely.
The statute you cited is the correct statute, but nobody seems to want to read the ACTUAL law. Instead, they want to believe what they want to believe.
This is no different than refusing to find out about the true facts of Covid, face masks, etc.
This movement should be about research and facts, not make believe.
There is another issue with this law, and that is that it created the office of "governor" for the District of Columbia." DC does not have a governor, to my knowledge. It only has a mayor. That right there should be a red flag that something is not right.
I have read that this statute was either modified or repealed a few years later, but I don't have a cite for that.
The Statutes at Large are a problem because it is nearly impossible to wade through all the laws on any particular subject.
That's why they created the United States Code -- it is an index by subject matter for the Statutes at Large. But if a statute was repealed, good luck finding the original anywhere. It is in there somewhere, but like finding a needle in a haystack.
Regardless, if anyone can show who the Governor of DC is, then they might have a point. Otherwise, THINK FOR YOURSELF.
Now, having said all that, there is no question that there are individuals who, over time, created laws that falsely hint that jurisdiction exists within the states when in fact the law only applies to federal territory (which today is DC and a few islands -- Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, Guam, etc.).
In 1871, there were a lot more territories that belonged to the feds. Today, not so much. They DID obfuscate the facts of federal jurisidiction, but that doesn't really matter because the Constitution has not changed.
Anything done in violation of the Constitution is VOID.
Your information is correct. There are people promoting the "US Corp" narrative, and it is very unlikely.
The statute you cited is the correct statute, but nobody seems to want to read the ACTUAL law. Instead, they want to believe what they want to believe.
This is no different than refusing to find out about the true facts of Covid, face masks, etc.
This movement should be about research and facts, not make believe.
There is another issue with this law, and that is that it created the office of "governor" for the District of Columbia." DC does not have a governor, to my knowledge. It only has a mayor. That right there should be a red flag that something is not right.
I have read that this statute was either modified or repealed a few years later, but I don't have a cite for that.
The Statutes at Large are a problem because it is nearly impossible to wade through all the laws on any particular subject.
That's why they created the United States Code -- it is an index by subject matter for the Statutes at Large. But if a statute was repealed, good luck finding the original anywhere. It is in there somewhere, but like finding a needle in a haystack.
Regardless, if anyone can show who the Governor of DC is, then they might have a point. Otherwise, THINK FOR YOURSELF.
Now, having said all that, there is no question that there are individuals who, over time, created laws that falsely hint that jurisdiction exists within the states when in fact the law only applies to federal territory (which today is DC and a few islands -- Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, Guam, etc.).
In 1871, there were a lot more territory that belonged ot the feds. Today, not so much. They DID obfuscate the facts of federal jurisidiction, but that doesn't really matter because the Constitution has not changed.
Anything done in violation of the Constitution is VOID.
Your information is correct. There are people promoting the "US Corp" narrative, and it is very unlikely.
The statute you cited is the correct statute, but nobody seems to want to read the ACTUAL law. Instead, they want to believe what they want to believe.
This is no different than refusing to find out about the true facts of Covid, face masks, etc.
This movement should be about research and facts, not make believe.
There is another issue with this law, and that is that it created the office of "governor" for the District of Columbia." DC does not have a governor, to my knowledge. It only has a mayor. That right there should be a red flag that something is not right.
I have read that this statute was either modified or repealed a few years later, but I don't have a cite for that.
The Statutes at Large are a problem because it is nearly impossible to wade through all the laws on any particular subject.
That's why they created the United States Code -- it is an index by subject matter for the Statutes at Large. But if a statute was repealed, good luck finding the original anywhere. It is in there somewhere, but like finding a needle in a haystack.
Regardless, if anyone can show who the Governor of DC is, then they might have a point. Otherwise, THINK FOR YOURSELF.