Better than anything else. We advance and they retreat. We claim and they acquiesce.
Once there is a preponderance of evidence it is time to take action.You are only words. You fail to stand and deliver. You are in the 62.5% that will not speak truth to the de facto face to face. Another anon. It takes a social compact.
Has the state of Oregon seceded from the federal government of the United States?
Because if not, then you and I we have the same sovereignty don’t fool yourself.
Oregon’s sovereignty doesn’t derive from obscure interpretations or pseudo-legal theories—it’s grounded in clear, established principles of constitutional and federal law, granting it status as a state within the United States with specific powers and government structure.
U.S. Constitution
The U.S. Constitution establishes state sovereignty in matters not explicitly reserved for the federal government. The Tenth Amendment affirms that any powers not granted to the United States are left to the states or the people. This is the basis for genuine state sovereignty, not unsupported ideas that disregard the actual structure of American federalism.
Admission to the Union (1859)
Oregon formally joined the United States on February 14, 1859, under the Oregon Admission Act, and was given the same rights and responsibilities as the original 13 states. Its sovereignty within the Union has been legally recognized from that date, allowing it to govern its own affairs while still under federal jurisdiction on issues where the Constitution grants authority to the federal government by the People.
Oregon Constitution:
Established in 1857 and effective upon statehood, Oregon’s constitution defines its structure, powers, and citizens’ rights. Article I, Section 1, acknowledges that “all power is inherent in the people,” reinforcing principles of self-governance within the legal framework, not outside of it. This isn’t about bypassing federal law; it’s about operating under the legally defined authority granted to states within the Union to which they accepted.
Federalism:
Oregon’s sovereignty exists as part of the broader U.S. federal system, granted by the constitution, assuring its significant autonomy over its internal affairs—like criminal law, education, and infrastructure—so long as state laws don’t conflict with the U.S. constitution and federal laws. This works both ways as the constitution isn’t a document that grants We the People any rights rather protects those rights.
Federalism isn’t about ignoring or opposing federal jurisdiction; it’s about balancing authority between state and federal government as defined in the Constitution. Ignoring it allows for corruption to grow and tyranny to take shape.
Oregon’s sovereignty is based on the principles set out in the U.S. Constitution, Oregon’s own constitution, and the structure of federalism, which provide it with authority over internal governance while it remains a part of the larger federal union.
Despite this complex jargon and lofty claims, you aren’t fooling anyone—you rely on flawed interpretations that don’t hold up in court or under actual law. If you dislike the current system change it. Simply ignoring it doesn’t make someone smarter or more courageous; it shows a refusal to engage with the facts and a lack of respect for genuine solutions.
A wonderful opportunity to make an Object Lesson out of Oregon, for all others to see and prudently heed. The evil culprits, responsible for traitorous acts, are exposed by their own actions, while holding office, and violating their own Oath to Office and the Law. Military prosecution is warranted, providing they don’t get their tickets mortally punched in the process of their apprehension. The impartial Military forces would most likely be involved in harvesting the evil culprits, and is more likely to have the uninfluenced judicial department capable of adjudicating the culprits fairly. Draining the swamp visibly, openly, and most thoroughly at the local State level, in just one State alone, should suffice as a prime example, and as a personal warning to all progressive, Marxist, or Communist politicians. If Oregon politicians want to play their cards in this fashion, let them first, legally obtain secession by Oregon from the Union, and then proceed as they damned well like! In order to benefit from all aspects of membership in the Union, A State must adhere to ALL the formal agreements it made at the time the State was accepted into said Union. There is no pick and choose smorgasbord afforded to States in their decision of which Laws apply and which are open to illogical interpretation and shameful implementation. It is a shame that no PATRIOT, grass root organization, residing in Oregon, such as a State Militia, does not appear to exist.
I noticed that you draw on certain legal principles to challenge the legitimacy of the federal government. However, in doing so, you appear to selectively apply and interpret legal principles in ways that align with your views, while disregarding those that don’t support them. This approach risks undermining the consistency needed in any legal argument.
Constitutional Interpretation and Historical Claims:
You argue that the Civil War and subsequent actions, like the Lieber Code (Executive Order #100), effectively invalidated the original Constitution, creating what you describe as the “United States of Washington District of Columbia Inc.” Yet, this interpretation overlooks foundational principles in constitutional law that maintain the continuity of the Union. While certain fringe theories assert that significant legal shifts happened in the 1860s, mainstream legal principles uphold that amendments and legal interpretations—such as those following the Civil War—were legitimate processes within the bounds of constitutional law.
“Without Rebuttal” as Proof of Legitimacy:
You frequently cite the phrase “without rebuttal” to suggest that Oregon’s sovereignty is validated simply because no federal or state entity has formally refuted your claims. However, this notion of “tacit acceptance” is not a recognized principle in the legal system. In law, the legitimacy of an argument isn’t determined by the absence of a rebuttal; it’s established through recognized judicial procedures, statutory interpretations, and constitutional amendments. By relying on “without rebuttal,” you’re applying a standard outside mainstream legal frameworks, which generally require proactive validation through formal rulings or legislative processes rather than silence.
Selective Use of Legal Precedents:
You argue that only certain constitutional provisions or interpretations are valid, while others—such as the 14th Amendment and federal statutes—are illegitimate. This approach is inconsistent with how legal systems operate. In a constitutional republic, legal principles are applied uniformly, with judicial review and due process ensuring that laws, including amendments, are upheld or challenged within the bounds of constitutional authority. By choosing to exclude certain amendments and interpret others narrowly, you’re employing the same selective legal reasoning that you criticize in the federal government. This contradiction weakens the consistency of the argument that one side alone is misapplying or misinterpreting the Constitution.
Claim of “De Jure” vs. “De Facto” Governance:
You contend that the current federal government operates as a “de facto” government, implying that it’s an illegitimate, corporate entity and that only Oregon, through the Oregon Statewide Jural Assembly, has reclaimed “de jure” authority. Yet, the principle of “de jure” governance you advocate requires a lawful basis recognized by the broader constitutional framework. By rejecting federal governance yet asserting local authority on a “de jure” basis, you’re selectively redefining legitimacy without applying a consistent legal standard. In a true constitutional republic, legitimacy is not subjective or unilaterally declared; it’s validated through established legal structures and collective governance, all rooted in the Constitution.
Assertion of Local Sovereignty “Without Rebuttal”:
You argue that actions taken by Oregon’s Jural Assembly, as detailed on websites or other media, establish sovereignty in the absence of formal rebuttals. But in our constitutional republic, legal authority is not granted through public statements or silence alone; it requires legal recognition and procedural validation through the courts or legislatures. By asserting that silence or a lack of rebuttal confers legitimacy, you’re applying a standard that doesn’t align with the consistent legal process required in a constitutional framework.
Social Compact Theory vs. Constitutional Law:
You reference a “social compact” to argue that governance must be directly consented to by citizens. While social compact theory is foundational to governing principles, the structure of our constitutional republic balances individual rights with the rule of law established by collective consent. The legitimacy of governance doesn’t depend on direct consent for each law but on representative processes and constitutional protections. By interpreting the social compact as requiring explicit, individual consent for each law, your argument deviates from the established principles that govern our constitutional republic.
Your position reflects an inconsistency in applying legal principles: while challenging the legitimacy of the federal government for allegedly overstepping constitutional boundaries, your argument selectively omits or reinterprets key legal principles within the same framework. This selective approach echoes the same inconsistency you attribute to the federal government. In a constitutional republic, the rule of law requires that legal principles be applied consistently, without selective omissions or reinterpretations.
Ultimately, while your views are part of a broader ideological debate, they diverge from the established legal framework that defines lawful governance in the United States.
As for you labeling me as an “agent provocateur,” that’s interesting but not at all surprising. Instead of engaging in meaningful debate, you chose to resort to belittlement and insult those who disagree with you, as if that’s the most effective way to convey your point. I can assure you, this approach is likely a key reason why your organization isn’t making meaningful strides or improving the lives of fellow countrymen.
From the tone of your response, it seems your priority is not to foster constructive dialogue but rather to degrade and belittle others in an effort to appear more knowledgeable. But the reality is, that approach only reveals a lack of depth.
In fact, I would argue that the ideology you promote leads people into a position of stagnation, where real, meaningful change becomes impossible. To be clear, I don’t blindly agree with everything this government does. But I do recognize that if we want to effect change, we have to work within the system in place. As frustrating as that may seem, it’s the reality.
The tone of surveillance and threats in your messages is not indicative of a true patriot or freeman. A commitment to the values of freedom and a constitutional republic means respecting open discourse and differing perspectives without resorting to intimidation. Let me remind you that I didn’t seek you out. You commented on my Substack, appearing to seek out my writings. While I welcome constructive discussion, I don’t take kindly to threats.
To address the points you raised:
1. Ex Parte Milligan (1866):
• The ex parte Milligan case did not authorize self-appointed assemblies or alternative court systems. Its significance was in affirming that the government cannot use military tribunals to try civilians if civilian courts are still operational, thereby protecting civil liberties. The ruling reinforces that jurisdiction remains with the established civilian court system—not with groups claiming authority outside of it.
• If we’re committed to change within a constitutional republic, Milligan emphasizes working within civilian court structures and due process, not bypassing them. It confirms the right of civilian courts to maintain jurisdiction over civilian matters, reinforcing the importance of established legal frameworks.
2. The Lieber Code (Executive Order #100):
• The Lieber Code, issued during the Civil War, was a temporary wartime measure intended to regulate military conduct, particularly for Union troops operating in Confederate territories. It was never meant as a framework for civilian governance or as ongoing authority. Its purpose was specific to military behavior and military occupation, not civilian authority.
• Applying the Lieber Code as a justification for self-proclaimed governance ignores its historical context and intent. This order was designed for military occupation during a specific conflict, not for any form of lasting civilian authority. Invoking it to legitimize independent governance falls outside the bounds of what the Code was designed to address.
3. FEMA and Martial Law:
• FEMA’s role is centered on emergency management and disaster response coordination—not on imposing martial law. While there are certainly concerns in some circles about overreach, FEMA’s powers are limited by the laws governing it, and it has no standing authority to enforce martial law or to supersede civilian governance.
• Attempting to nullify FEMA’s existence or reject its authority altogether doesn’t align with an effective approach to civic action. If FEMA’s authority is a concern, the solution is to address it through the legislative and judicial channels available. Real change requires using the established legal framework, not rejecting its existence outright.
4. De Jure vs. De Facto Governance:
• You claim that the Oregon Statewide Jural Assembly is “de jure” while the current government is “de facto.” However, legitimacy in our constitutional republic isn’t established by lack of rebuttal or silence from authorities. Unilaterally declaring “de jure” status without official recognition does not make it practical or effective. In our legal system, legitimacy requires recognized authority within the established structures.
• For change to have a real, lasting impact, it must be pursued within a legitimate, recognized system where reform can achieve wide-reaching recognition and authority. Asserting “de jure” status outside of this framework isolates your efforts without advancing a path to meaningful, acknowledged change.
• The statutes you’ve referenced are specific to civil rights cases and the judicial process:
• 42 U.S.C. 1988 is a provision allowing for attorney’s fees in civil rights litigation. It does not authorize independent investigations or the formation of alternative courts. Its purpose is to support civil rights cases within the existing judicial system.
• 18 U.S.C. 1510 and 1512 relate to obstruction of justice and witness tampering. These statutes exist to protect the judicial process by criminalizing interference with court proceedings, underscoring the importance of maintaining established legal procedures.
• Using these laws as a basis for alternative authority misunderstands their function. They were intended to uphold the integrity of current judicial systems, not to provide independent or unrecognized groups the authority to operate outside these processes.
If the goal is to restore or reform the system, meaningful change has to come from working within the recognized legal structure. Only by engaging with the system can efforts yield results that are acknowledged, lasting, and impactful. Real authority—and the power to make meaningful change—comes from reform pursued through established channels, not through threats or unrecognized assertions of authority.
If you’re committed to making a difference, the path forward lies in legal reform through established processes, not self-defined rules outside the system. Do not play the victim here. And your threats mean nothing to me. Just FYI.
Thank you 😊
Better than anything else. We advance and they retreat. We claim and they acquiesce.
Once there is a preponderance of evidence it is time to take action.You are only words. You fail to stand and deliver. You are in the 62.5% that will not speak truth to the de facto face to face. Another anon. It takes a social compact.
Has the state of Oregon seceded from the federal government of the United States?
Because if not, then you and I we have the same sovereignty don’t fool yourself.
Oregon’s sovereignty doesn’t derive from obscure interpretations or pseudo-legal theories—it’s grounded in clear, established principles of constitutional and federal law, granting it status as a state within the United States with specific powers and government structure.
U.S. Constitution
The U.S. Constitution establishes state sovereignty in matters not explicitly reserved for the federal government. The Tenth Amendment affirms that any powers not granted to the United States are left to the states or the people. This is the basis for genuine state sovereignty, not unsupported ideas that disregard the actual structure of American federalism.
Admission to the Union (1859)
Oregon formally joined the United States on February 14, 1859, under the Oregon Admission Act, and was given the same rights and responsibilities as the original 13 states. Its sovereignty within the Union has been legally recognized from that date, allowing it to govern its own affairs while still under federal jurisdiction on issues where the Constitution grants authority to the federal government by the People.
Oregon Constitution:
Established in 1857 and effective upon statehood, Oregon’s constitution defines its structure, powers, and citizens’ rights. Article I, Section 1, acknowledges that “all power is inherent in the people,” reinforcing principles of self-governance within the legal framework, not outside of it. This isn’t about bypassing federal law; it’s about operating under the legally defined authority granted to states within the Union to which they accepted.
Federalism:
Oregon’s sovereignty exists as part of the broader U.S. federal system, granted by the constitution, assuring its significant autonomy over its internal affairs—like criminal law, education, and infrastructure—so long as state laws don’t conflict with the U.S. constitution and federal laws. This works both ways as the constitution isn’t a document that grants We the People any rights rather protects those rights.
Federalism isn’t about ignoring or opposing federal jurisdiction; it’s about balancing authority between state and federal government as defined in the Constitution. Ignoring it allows for corruption to grow and tyranny to take shape.
Oregon’s sovereignty is based on the principles set out in the U.S. Constitution, Oregon’s own constitution, and the structure of federalism, which provide it with authority over internal governance while it remains a part of the larger federal union.
Despite this complex jargon and lofty claims, you aren’t fooling anyone—you rely on flawed interpretations that don’t hold up in court or under actual law. If you dislike the current system change it. Simply ignoring it doesn’t make someone smarter or more courageous; it shows a refusal to engage with the facts and a lack of respect for genuine solutions.
A wonderful opportunity to make an Object Lesson out of Oregon, for all others to see and prudently heed. The evil culprits, responsible for traitorous acts, are exposed by their own actions, while holding office, and violating their own Oath to Office and the Law. Military prosecution is warranted, providing they don’t get their tickets mortally punched in the process of their apprehension. The impartial Military forces would most likely be involved in harvesting the evil culprits, and is more likely to have the uninfluenced judicial department capable of adjudicating the culprits fairly. Draining the swamp visibly, openly, and most thoroughly at the local State level, in just one State alone, should suffice as a prime example, and as a personal warning to all progressive, Marxist, or Communist politicians. If Oregon politicians want to play their cards in this fashion, let them first, legally obtain secession by Oregon from the Union, and then proceed as they damned well like! In order to benefit from all aspects of membership in the Union, A State must adhere to ALL the formal agreements it made at the time the State was accepted into said Union. There is no pick and choose smorgasbord afforded to States in their decision of which Laws apply and which are open to illogical interpretation and shameful implementation. It is a shame that no PATRIOT, grass root organization, residing in Oregon, such as a State Militia, does not appear to exist.
My names Andrew Fayal. I am not an anon. Many that know me know this.
There may be no future as you know it. ARTICLE I Section 1 is a solution. Not what you are doing. www.orsja.org
How’s that going for ya??
Umm hmm…
I noticed that you draw on certain legal principles to challenge the legitimacy of the federal government. However, in doing so, you appear to selectively apply and interpret legal principles in ways that align with your views, while disregarding those that don’t support them. This approach risks undermining the consistency needed in any legal argument.
Constitutional Interpretation and Historical Claims:
You argue that the Civil War and subsequent actions, like the Lieber Code (Executive Order #100), effectively invalidated the original Constitution, creating what you describe as the “United States of Washington District of Columbia Inc.” Yet, this interpretation overlooks foundational principles in constitutional law that maintain the continuity of the Union. While certain fringe theories assert that significant legal shifts happened in the 1860s, mainstream legal principles uphold that amendments and legal interpretations—such as those following the Civil War—were legitimate processes within the bounds of constitutional law.
“Without Rebuttal” as Proof of Legitimacy:
You frequently cite the phrase “without rebuttal” to suggest that Oregon’s sovereignty is validated simply because no federal or state entity has formally refuted your claims. However, this notion of “tacit acceptance” is not a recognized principle in the legal system. In law, the legitimacy of an argument isn’t determined by the absence of a rebuttal; it’s established through recognized judicial procedures, statutory interpretations, and constitutional amendments. By relying on “without rebuttal,” you’re applying a standard outside mainstream legal frameworks, which generally require proactive validation through formal rulings or legislative processes rather than silence.
Selective Use of Legal Precedents:
You argue that only certain constitutional provisions or interpretations are valid, while others—such as the 14th Amendment and federal statutes—are illegitimate. This approach is inconsistent with how legal systems operate. In a constitutional republic, legal principles are applied uniformly, with judicial review and due process ensuring that laws, including amendments, are upheld or challenged within the bounds of constitutional authority. By choosing to exclude certain amendments and interpret others narrowly, you’re employing the same selective legal reasoning that you criticize in the federal government. This contradiction weakens the consistency of the argument that one side alone is misapplying or misinterpreting the Constitution.
Claim of “De Jure” vs. “De Facto” Governance:
You contend that the current federal government operates as a “de facto” government, implying that it’s an illegitimate, corporate entity and that only Oregon, through the Oregon Statewide Jural Assembly, has reclaimed “de jure” authority. Yet, the principle of “de jure” governance you advocate requires a lawful basis recognized by the broader constitutional framework. By rejecting federal governance yet asserting local authority on a “de jure” basis, you’re selectively redefining legitimacy without applying a consistent legal standard. In a true constitutional republic, legitimacy is not subjective or unilaterally declared; it’s validated through established legal structures and collective governance, all rooted in the Constitution.
Assertion of Local Sovereignty “Without Rebuttal”:
You argue that actions taken by Oregon’s Jural Assembly, as detailed on websites or other media, establish sovereignty in the absence of formal rebuttals. But in our constitutional republic, legal authority is not granted through public statements or silence alone; it requires legal recognition and procedural validation through the courts or legislatures. By asserting that silence or a lack of rebuttal confers legitimacy, you’re applying a standard that doesn’t align with the consistent legal process required in a constitutional framework.
Social Compact Theory vs. Constitutional Law:
You reference a “social compact” to argue that governance must be directly consented to by citizens. While social compact theory is foundational to governing principles, the structure of our constitutional republic balances individual rights with the rule of law established by collective consent. The legitimacy of governance doesn’t depend on direct consent for each law but on representative processes and constitutional protections. By interpreting the social compact as requiring explicit, individual consent for each law, your argument deviates from the established principles that govern our constitutional republic.
Your position reflects an inconsistency in applying legal principles: while challenging the legitimacy of the federal government for allegedly overstepping constitutional boundaries, your argument selectively omits or reinterprets key legal principles within the same framework. This selective approach echoes the same inconsistency you attribute to the federal government. In a constitutional republic, the rule of law requires that legal principles be applied consistently, without selective omissions or reinterpretations.
Ultimately, while your views are part of a broader ideological debate, they diverge from the established legal framework that defines lawful governance in the United States.
As for you labeling me as an “agent provocateur,” that’s interesting but not at all surprising. Instead of engaging in meaningful debate, you chose to resort to belittlement and insult those who disagree with you, as if that’s the most effective way to convey your point. I can assure you, this approach is likely a key reason why your organization isn’t making meaningful strides or improving the lives of fellow countrymen.
From the tone of your response, it seems your priority is not to foster constructive dialogue but rather to degrade and belittle others in an effort to appear more knowledgeable. But the reality is, that approach only reveals a lack of depth.
In fact, I would argue that the ideology you promote leads people into a position of stagnation, where real, meaningful change becomes impossible. To be clear, I don’t blindly agree with everything this government does. But I do recognize that if we want to effect change, we have to work within the system in place. As frustrating as that may seem, it’s the reality.
Ron,
The tone of surveillance and threats in your messages is not indicative of a true patriot or freeman. A commitment to the values of freedom and a constitutional republic means respecting open discourse and differing perspectives without resorting to intimidation. Let me remind you that I didn’t seek you out. You commented on my Substack, appearing to seek out my writings. While I welcome constructive discussion, I don’t take kindly to threats.
To address the points you raised:
1. Ex Parte Milligan (1866):
• The ex parte Milligan case did not authorize self-appointed assemblies or alternative court systems. Its significance was in affirming that the government cannot use military tribunals to try civilians if civilian courts are still operational, thereby protecting civil liberties. The ruling reinforces that jurisdiction remains with the established civilian court system—not with groups claiming authority outside of it.
• If we’re committed to change within a constitutional republic, Milligan emphasizes working within civilian court structures and due process, not bypassing them. It confirms the right of civilian courts to maintain jurisdiction over civilian matters, reinforcing the importance of established legal frameworks.
2. The Lieber Code (Executive Order #100):
• The Lieber Code, issued during the Civil War, was a temporary wartime measure intended to regulate military conduct, particularly for Union troops operating in Confederate territories. It was never meant as a framework for civilian governance or as ongoing authority. Its purpose was specific to military behavior and military occupation, not civilian authority.
• Applying the Lieber Code as a justification for self-proclaimed governance ignores its historical context and intent. This order was designed for military occupation during a specific conflict, not for any form of lasting civilian authority. Invoking it to legitimize independent governance falls outside the bounds of what the Code was designed to address.
3. FEMA and Martial Law:
• FEMA’s role is centered on emergency management and disaster response coordination—not on imposing martial law. While there are certainly concerns in some circles about overreach, FEMA’s powers are limited by the laws governing it, and it has no standing authority to enforce martial law or to supersede civilian governance.
• Attempting to nullify FEMA’s existence or reject its authority altogether doesn’t align with an effective approach to civic action. If FEMA’s authority is a concern, the solution is to address it through the legislative and judicial channels available. Real change requires using the established legal framework, not rejecting its existence outright.
4. De Jure vs. De Facto Governance:
• You claim that the Oregon Statewide Jural Assembly is “de jure” while the current government is “de facto.” However, legitimacy in our constitutional republic isn’t established by lack of rebuttal or silence from authorities. Unilaterally declaring “de jure” status without official recognition does not make it practical or effective. In our legal system, legitimacy requires recognized authority within the established structures.
• For change to have a real, lasting impact, it must be pursued within a legitimate, recognized system where reform can achieve wide-reaching recognition and authority. Asserting “de jure” status outside of this framework isolates your efforts without advancing a path to meaningful, acknowledged change.
5. Statutes Cited (42 U.S.C. 1988, 18 U.S.C. 1510, and 18 U.S.C. 1512):
• The statutes you’ve referenced are specific to civil rights cases and the judicial process:
• 42 U.S.C. 1988 is a provision allowing for attorney’s fees in civil rights litigation. It does not authorize independent investigations or the formation of alternative courts. Its purpose is to support civil rights cases within the existing judicial system.
• 18 U.S.C. 1510 and 1512 relate to obstruction of justice and witness tampering. These statutes exist to protect the judicial process by criminalizing interference with court proceedings, underscoring the importance of maintaining established legal procedures.
• Using these laws as a basis for alternative authority misunderstands their function. They were intended to uphold the integrity of current judicial systems, not to provide independent or unrecognized groups the authority to operate outside these processes.
If the goal is to restore or reform the system, meaningful change has to come from working within the recognized legal structure. Only by engaging with the system can efforts yield results that are acknowledged, lasting, and impactful. Real authority—and the power to make meaningful change—comes from reform pursued through established channels, not through threats or unrecognized assertions of authority.
If you’re committed to making a difference, the path forward lies in legal reform through established processes, not self-defined rules outside the system. Do not play the victim here. And your threats mean nothing to me. Just FYI.
I care less of who you think I am. If you do not want discourse HERE, I recommend you not comment on people’s articles.
Good luck.