U.S. Will Enforce Marijuana Laws, State Vote Aside

[amstercal]

Kid--Below is a link to a little bit older story that I think perfectly sums up the battle in my county. It stuck with me because it's so typical of here. Garden Grove is one of the more crime ridden, lower-income cities in Orange County, a place that doesn't have many of those. They fought giving some patient back his dimebag, citing it's against federal law, to the tune of $220,000. That city doesn't have that kind of money to blow, especially lately. There's a funny note in the story about the lone dispensary that operates WITH a city license that has BANNED dispensaries. It's a total legal clusterfuck.

Garden Grove is not doing well financially, but they're willing to spend all that on a court case just so as not to give a guy back his bag. Why would they ever actually vote to have an outlet if they're willing to go that far for one guy's bag? In the meantime, that dispensary is still operating last time I heard. I have no idea why they don't try to shut them down after banning them, but I don't exactly want to encourage the DEA reopen its war on dispensaries in CA while they figure out which ones are actually for patients and which are pot stores. I'm not thrilled that all of the dispensaries in my county operate illegally since no city will allow them, but at least they're hanging in there for now. 19 won't help them, but I can see how it might hurt them.

http://www.ocregister.com/news/city-126789-marijuana-kha.html


And true about the momentum... for a different bill. Really, maybe it's different in your state, but "follow up" props seldom pass here.

 

[Darth Fader]

try using google and you will see that MJ is brings in more money for mexican cartels that any other drug, doesnt mean prop 19 is going to put them out of business, criminals usually dont go back to school and become teachers, they find other ways to be criminals

Where's Al Capone? Right now the cartels are too powerful for the Mexican government to defeat. But $$$ = power. The less $$ they have to buy politicians, police, guns, hire goons, pay for assassinations, hire drug mules, the weaker they become. It's even an effective strategy against religious based terrorist organizations and even more so against a group that is solely about the $$$. Simple economics.

And you should relate to the blind and ridiculous idealism since you seem to think even if 19 takes MJ off the cartel's list, it's somehow going to decrease their power/destruction/whatever. Ditto on Diz's sentiment.

See above. It's not idealism, it's basic effin economics! What is so tough about this concept? Of course it will take the end of Prohibition in the U.S. to fully and ultimately achieve this, but it is a step-by-step process and Prop 19 is the next BIG step. If it fails, the Prohibitionist have their talking points. If it passes, we'll get the snowball effect. States (their people) will say "Why don't we even have MMJ here in ___, the sky hasn't fallen in CA." It will be far easier for them to get MMJ and make progree toward legalization. Every state that moves this way weakens the Gov't/DEA propaganda. The Feds aren't going to drop Prohibition on their own. We need to force it, state by state. WE THE PEOPLE. This Prop will show both parties which way the wind blows, and all those chicken-shit politicians will shift position right along with the breeze.

One last thing im trying to figure out is this whole movement has worked so hard to get this far why would they stop now? i mean just stop at 19?

NORML has been working for 30 years for an end to the injustice. This Prop is the snowball that is the beginning to the end. It will be epic, and it will kick off a nation-wide change. It's important to take advantage now and do this while the ecomomy is weak (same as the end to alcohol prohibition) and Obama is in office.

Kid--Below is a link to a little bit older story that I think perfectly sums up the battle in my county. ...

I don't exactly want to encourage the DEA reopen its war on dispensaries in CA while they figure out which ones are actually for patients and which are pot stores. I'm not thrilled that all of the dispensaries in my county operate illegally since no city will allow them, but at least they're hanging in there for now. 19 won't help them, but I can see how it might hurt them.

And true about the momentum... for a different bill. Really, maybe it's different in your state, but "follow up" props seldom pass here.

This Prop prohibits state and local law enforcement from participating in those type of actions (Section 11303: Seizure). I quoted the exact text earlier. By itself the DEA is very small, around 500 agents I believe. They typically utilize local police for the manpower for their raids, which CA state agencies will be prohibited from doing. Although there are 14 MMJ state currently, it is questionable whether or not we are overgrowing the government. That section will surely help - for ALL raids, recreational or MMJ. Obama and Holder will be out of office one day, but this section will continue to offer protection (by reducing manpower) from the Cooleys & Leonhart types.

Regarding your concerns for medical access and the difficulty in passing new propositions, note the following text (Section 5: Amendment)

this Act may be amended either by a subsequent measure submitted to a vote of the People at a statewide election; or by statute validly passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, but only to further the purposes of the Act.

Here's item 6 under the Purposes section:

6. Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes.

 

[xX Kid Twist Xx]

crzy about mexico as well an entire police force of a town just quit today after gumen threw grenades and fire 20k+ rounds at them.

 

[amstercal]

Ok so below is the section from 19 you say will protect us from this. Below that is the section from 215 that says something similar. Taking someone's weed away or their plants or whatever is "sanctioning" them, so please tell me what magical words are so different there that will actually prevent that from happening. Local law enforcement doesn't follow the "law;" they follow policy as determined by the AG etc. Of course we can bring court cases forward to make them stop the madness, but it takes time before cities like Garden Grove learn their lesson. 19 doesn't have some new magic shield that will actually get cities to give mj patients or rec users their rights. The "law" depends on how LEO chooses to enforce it, then as citizens we have the right to contest their interpretation and take it to the courts to decide. 19 doesn't give us a magic potion to clean up the system. Patients and users alike will still have to fight with the locals for their rights, just like with 215.

And I'm sorry but I'm not going to vote for a badly conceived and written prop just so the the "Prohibitionist [won't] have their talking points." And I won't vote for something that causes so many problems just so other states can follow. As the no people are constantly telling the yes people, have the courage to do what's right... and wait for a proposition that actually helps anybody.

11303. Seizure.
Notwithstanding Sections 11470 and 11479 of this code or any other provision of law, no state or local law enforcement agency or official shall attempt to, threaten to, or in fact seize or destroy any cannabis plant, cannabis seeds, or cannabis that is lawfully cultivated, processed, transported, possessed, possessed for sale, sold, or used in compliance with this act or any local government ordinance, law, or regulation adopted pursuant to this act.


From 215
(B) To ensure that patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction

 

[Seamaiden]

Reading is too hard! WAAAAAAA!!!!

 

[Illmind]

Seems to me like being quiet is harder for you. You know what they say empty barrels make the most noise.

 

[Seamaiden]

Here's an idea, Illmind. How about you start posting stuff that's based on facts instead of what you pull out of your rear?

:mmm <--- facts!

 

[just_in_ct]

No i didn't read the thread. But you talk about how dispensaries dont have to be there. Well they dont have to allow them now so why would yes on prop 19 make any difference? Either way it will be illegal federally. And really i could care less to argue, but I do know that prop 19 has far more benefits than negatives. And i wasn't trying to single out people but when someone thinks prop 19 will affect medical they are wrong. If you are doing a medical grow and will NOT be cut down to a 5 x 5. And also people keep asking how can you grow it but only posses an ounce. READ THE PROP! THIS MEANS OUTSIDE OF THE HOME.

 

[just_in_ct]

Well the head of the fuckin DEA said 19 would affect 215....so now what?

Educate me.

go to norml.org and read. It might affect it somewhat but all I meant is it wont affect the size of the grow room. Medical Marijuana and recreational marijuana are two different things.

 

[just_in_ct]

To protect your medical collectives. Over the fourteen years of medical marijuana in California we’ve seen numerous raids on medical marijuana collectives, or “dispensaries”. Many are conducted by state or local authorities, some by DEA but always with the cooperation and assistance of local law enforcement. Prop 19 forbids state and local law enforcement from seizing, attempting to seize, or even threatening to seize lawfully cultivated marijuana – medical or personal. Prop 19 makes it impossible for local law enforcement to assist federal prosecution of medical marijuana collectives.

To provide easier access to cheaper medicine. Currently a patient has to see a doctor and pay for a recommendation to use medical marijuana. The patient has to carry around that recommendation to prove medical use to the police. The patient can designate a caregiver to grow for them or buy from a dispensary at grossly inflated prices. After Prop 19, you can use marijuana simply because you decide to, no doctors, no notes. Any number of your friends could be growing marijuana for you. There may even be Prop 19 stores that open in your city. Prop 19 will lower marijuana prices and provide greater access to patients without need for permission slips.

To allow you to grow a lot of marijuana. For adults who decide not to get Prop 215 recommendations, you will be allowed under Prop 19 to cultivate a plot of marijuana not exceeding 25 square feet. The DEA has concluded that the average yield of cannabis bud per square foot is about one-half ounce – that’s over three quarters of a pound from a 5’x5’ garden. Prop 19 allows you to keep the results of your harvests; the one ounce limitation only applies to taking your marijuana out of your residence. Prop 19 does not impose arbitrary plant and possession limits at your home grow site.

 

[chefrey]

even having my MMJ card in cali did not protect from arrest for possession, the cop said that federal law trumps state law even though he was a local cop. My lawer got me out and all charges droped but if a cop wants to be a dick he can if you try and fight arrest that in and of itself is a crime. To say that the voters of cali will set the MMJ movement back I remind you that the voters of cali started the MMJ movement, I say do it and let the rest of the country catch up just like cali has always done

 

[Illmind]

Hmm I thought empty barrels made the most noise looks like I'm gonna have to take that outta the old fact book for seamaiden because she disagrees from her high horse. How's the weather up there? LOL cali voters made prop 215, look up 215 and read who got the bill in to be voted on. It was a woman and a dude with aids. You cats didn't do shit just as you are doing now.

 

[amstercal]

Illmind--You're not actually saying anything of value, just insulting Seamaiden. Since she's a woman and therefore subject to your general scorn for women, I realize nothing she could say would change your mind, but gees, could the peanut gallery shut it already?

just in ct--Dude, are you really going to give us a lecture on how 19 is so good and we are so wrong when you won't even bother to read the thread to see our points? Numerous people have brought up the conflicts with MMJ and how it will affect medical growers' gardens. Although I respect NORML's work, they can't say it won't affect MMJ with any certainty. A court will decide that many years from now. The language is ambiguous enough to give people concern and NORML doesn't make any court rulings, regardless of how many lawyers work for them. If you are too lazy to even read, are you really going to continue to lecture people here about what they should do, from across the country no less? Now that's some high horse.

 

[Bobby Smith]

Wowsers - 1.5 hours on this thread, and my favorite part was the definitely the Canada bashing (some good laughs around those posts).

Anyways, after trying to hear the arguments on both sides (and even though I say I'm from Cali in my journals, I'm a few thousand miles east of there in real life), I'd have to say I side with the "vote yes" people.

To a neutral bystander (me), it seems as though the overriding motive behind voting "no" is that (this is an oversimplification, but not a gross one, IMO) the current medical growers would like to keep the profits for themselves, and not let any old Tom, Dick, or Harry without a rec grow.

They also complain about big corporations coming in "wanting nothing but profits", yet to me (100% unbiased, swear to goodness) it seems as though they're simply interested in keeping those profits for themselves.

Some good points were brought up by Seamaiden (highly respect her) and Amstercal (if Kelly Slater dumped his GF for you, would love to get together :party0036:), but at the end I would have to agree that these appear to be somewhat "nitpicky".

Before either of you get up in arms about that, let me try to explain:

Although the classifying of anyone under 21 as a "minor" is kinda silly to me, the same goes for alcohol - alcohol was indeed "legalized" when Prohibition ended, but being "legalized" and "a free for all" are two different things.

MOST places you can't consume alcohol in public yet it's legal.

You can't provide it to minors, yet it's legal.

You can't consume copious amounts of it and operate heavy machinery, but it's legal.

Same deal with cigarettes - shit, on the East Coast where I am, I have to drive 50 miles in either direction to be able to smoke a cigarette if I choose to, yet it's "legal".

The whole thing about "not indulging with children around" I don't find to be that draconian - of course until precedent is set by caselaw, an officer could arrest you for smoking weed in your own home because your neighbor has kids, but for that to be your sole reason for voting against 19 seems to be grasping at straws (IMO).

Without precedent being set, I'd have a hard time believing that "reasonable measures" (an ambiguous phrase again, but at least a phrase with legal precedent - i.e. the prudent man rule, etc.) to ensure that you are far enough from children before indulging would keep you out of trouble.

There are no guarantees in life, but I'd feel pretty good about that one.

As far as Monsanto, if you don't like it, don't buy their shit - prop 19 allows EVERYONE to grow their own, without having to lie to your doctor to get an rx.

As far as the DEA coming in to bust everyone - you think they're gonna go to every house in Cali and bust EVERY single person with a 5x5 garden?

Or are they going to go for the MASSIVE COMMERCIAL OPS which all the "vote no" people seem to think are the bane of their existence?

And while we're at it, what exactly would be the difference between big pharma and massive commercial ops? That's not a rhetorical question - they're both massive, and they're both worried about profits, correct? Again, would love to be enlightened as to the clear cut line distinguishing corporations vs. large scale for-profit growers, and then the clear line distinguishing large scale for-profit growers from MMJ growers harvest upwards of 20#s every few months.

Also, if this is technically medicine, why should this not be regulated? To someone's point previous, if someone is actually smoking this for a medical reason, should they not have some guarantee that what they've purchased actually contains the medicinal qualities advertised?

People complain about big pharma, but do you know how much cheaper drugs would be if the FDA wasn't regulating them to death?

Anyhow, please don't flame me or call me a moron, that's just how I see it (starting out as a totally unbiased observer* and after reading the entire thread, but not reading Prop 19, in full disclosure).

*Maybe not totally unbiased, because legalization would be really fucking cool, but unbiased enough to hear both sides of the debate and draw conclusions from that.

EDIT: just to clarify - if I lived in Cali and had a nice 15-20 light MPB/UC setup and I was fully legal by state guidelines, I'd be voting "no" like a motherfucker - I wouldnt want the competition from "true" homegrowers or the increased attention from the Feds, either.

However, I (and the majority of the population, even in Cali) don't, which is why I think voting "yes" is the best answer for society as a whole, not only in Cali but the entire U.S.

If your town's elected officials choose to waste money on silly court cases, well..........there's a reason they're "elected" officials - get 'em the fuck out of office.

I tried to cover all the points I could remember from the thread, but I'm sure I missed one or two and I apologize for that.

 

[amstercal]

Bobby: That was a thoughtful post. It was skwirlgirl with Kelly Slater, not me, although I can't say I haven't been hit on by some of the famous surfers. They come in for the OP Pro etc and get a little worked up it seems. :-)

Although I understand that the mj users often go with the anti-big government, anti-big corp movements, I don't think it's a good argument. Unfortunately, legitimizing something in the US means allowing the government and business to get involved. It's inevitable, IMHO, if you truly want widespread acceptance of mmj or mj.

My problem is not just with the "any space" with a minor problem; although if you had a kid, I think you were feel this much more severely. I'd say my number one problem is with allowing the cities to say if there will be access or not. I live in Orange County... they call it the Orange Bubble or the Orange Curtain. It's a more conservative place in a pretty liberal state... think money and home owner's associations. There is already only 1 tiny city in the whole county that doesn't have a ban or something similar on dispensaries. They will never allow pot stores.

In the meantime, my number two problem will occur... it will set mmj back by getting the dea back involved here (again, I live in a richer county. even if they only have 500 agents, we will be seeing plenty of them here). Obviously, this will play out differently in each county, but even if the dea isn't involved, I think there will still be plenty of action by local law enforcement trying to test the limits on this and therefore many people going through expensive court battles. How 215 has played out and how there is still a battle going on to have mmj accepted, tells me that local leo will still be making arrests, tearing down gardens, causing problems.

My third concern is that I don't think it's right to limit growers to a 5x5 unless they can afford a commercial license (assuming your area will even issue one. again, not happening in my county). Not only does it invite big business into mj, but it actually excludes the ma and pa growers from participating. That's not capitalism, IMHO. It also bugs me that the one word left out from the 215 exemption, "cultivate," is the one word that helps Lee the most in his quest for commercial growing domination. Some coincidences are just too coincidental for me.

I hope that helps you see this isn't about greediness or nitpicking. I truly believe the prop is the wrong thing for mmj patients and for the legalization movement in general.

 

[Illmind]

Amstercal, just because some surfer beat you up don't mean he hit on you lol.. Cmon you practically giving em to me. For the record sugar plum in (real life) the ladies dig me and I dig them. I'm hardly sexist, a ball breaker indeed but that's in my heritage. It's embedded in my ethnicity trust me I know a lot of people. And people alike are pure ball crackers. I think you're just a little overly sensitive towards the dumb shit I say, so if you were hurt by anything I said I apologize to you and seamaiden. Even though seamaiden is my heroin aka hero and I'm pretty sure she isn't breakin a sweat off anything I typed. Have a good night peoples I ghosted :very_first_smiley:

 

[Bobby Smith]

Amstercal, unless I'm mistaken, everyone would be allowed to grow their own, with or without a prescription, correct? So how could the counties/cities preclude access to me from something I have growing in my closet? Clearly I must be missing something there, no?

And yes, if I did have a child (or two), that phrasing of the law would certainly give me pause, but I think that reasonable people can agree that the de facto prosecution of that will be nil save for extremely egregious cases, like shotgunning a blunt into your 12 year old's face.

And as far as "pot stores" being outlawed, with so many new homegrowers, will this really be an issue? I mean, really? Since you can now walk around with weed, who's gonna say if you grew the weed you're smoking or not? Will cops be trained in picking out different strains - "Bobby, I checked out your garden last week and you had hashplant, but this is definitely White Widow" - that doesn't seem very plausible to me.

Again, to the DEA point - are you rocking 50K watts or more? Because lotsa people are, and that's who the DEA would go after (if anyone) - you said it yourself - they have 500 agents - how long would it take them to bust every 10K and under grow in CA? We'll have invented time travel by the time that happens.

To your third point - should ma and pa really be involved in the selling of something that is considered "medical"? You don't see too many "ma and pa" pharma companies or tobacco companies - the reason is that the testing and rules to remain in compliance are too onerous a burden without economies of scale.

Unfortunately, that's gonna mean that if you want straight dank, you're gonna have to either grow it yourself or know a grower that grows it.

It seems like the MMJ/MJ/whatever movement thinks that because weed can be grown at home that it's not subject to the same taxes, regulations, and legislation that other legal goods are - until we (no, I'm not in Cali but am grouping myself in with pot growers worldwide) accept that it's a good that to legitimate needs to be taxed, regulated, and controlled like every other good, the movement will never gain acceptance.

Unfortunately, the only reason this measure has a shot is because of the shitty economy and because politicians want the tax dollars - that doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing.

If weed is legalized, the opportunity for making money from it will be severly diminished, so I can understand how people who have nice little money-making setups right now would be against it.

 

[amstercal]

Bobby--You're assuming that all smokers will want to grow or will be willing to buy illegally, not from these stores. I know a lot of smokers who would NEVER go to the trouble of growing no matter how legal it is. Since legalization should be about them too, not ensuring they have access is not any kind of legalization I know. I'm not saying they couldn't buy some off their friends illegally, but how is this legalization if we're immediately saying the average smoker is going to have to obtain it illegally?

You can call me unreasonable if you like, but how's this for reasonable... my mom can't smoke on our outdoor patio that faces a park because the crazy lady next door complains. According to the 2 lawyers I spoke to, we wouldn't win if we took the HOA to court. I know tons of stories of people getting prosecuted to the ridiculous extent of the law here and nosy neighbors would love to ensure I am. I have a cousin who's a court reporter and she refuses to work for any of the judges in the Newport Harbor court because she can't handle all the crying businesspeople being given jail time for minor crimes. Why would I ever assume that the prosecution would be less than the law allows? At least in the cities near me, cops will take the law as far as it will possibly allow them and further. If you need more anecdotal evidence, I've got some good stories.
BTW, the law actually only says it's one of the things that's not legal; it doesn't actually recommend a penalty or anything. However, if you have a kid, you don't risk that they are taken from you or you from them, even for a few nights.

How is mj to be considered "medical" if the bill is for recreational use? If it's recreational, why should it be regulated like pharma? There's nothing in the bill about regulating it like that, and cities wouldn't have the capacity to regulate it for quality etc like they do for cigarettes. Nothing about buying a commercial license from a city would produce a regulating agency. Again, if it were rescheduled, we could talk about the FDA regulating it or something.
I'm actually for taxing it, although I know many don't agree with me. I think taxing would also help it gain legitimacy. However, I think it should be like prescriptions for people who keep their rx current and not be taxed for them.

Again, this is not about the money for me. It's about badly written legislation.

Illmind--I appreciate the apology. I probably am a little too sensitive, but this place is already extremely masculine and singling us out as not being able not understand or do something because we are women doesn't help. It's like a boy who cried wolf kind of thing. No damage done... I bet my family could give anyone you know a run for his money in terms of ball busting. I thought my parents had found me under a rock in Tijuana for about a year when I was small.

 

[Seamaiden]

No sweat, Ill, just give as good as I get. :mmm

Whoa... amstercal, we used to tell my little sister she was found under a rock, and we lived near Tijuana...! We used to go to TJ all the time when I was a kid, I loved it.

 

[mikeyg.]

No offense but you have NO idea how the legal system works at all.. Not to mention I dont give 2 fucks who says I can or cannot have a natural reoccuring plant of this earth. I'll bet 99.5% of people reading this thread think they know the laws and what not.. truth be told, you have all been fooled into living under a society which doesnt apply to you unless you contract yourself into it. The society is called The Law Society, Hell they even have their own language.. It's called legalese, it sounds deceptively similar to english but it isnt!! Infact if you look at Blacks Law dictionary, you will find that the term "Person(s)" has been changed from You or I (Flesh and blood) to a corporation (Fictitious entity)

You may be wondering why? Well if you will kindly take notice to your drivers license, social security card.. ANYTHING government issued infact, You will notice your name in ALL capital letters. What else in our world has its name in all capital letters? only every single corporation to have ever exsisted. Again, the question is why? It's simple.. We are supposed to be FREE, this is what our fore fathers envisioned.. yet are we free? Since our name is in all capital letters on all our ID's we are at the status of a corporation, what is the status of a corporation? THE LOWEST ONE COULD POSSIBLY BE, A SLAVE. Infact guess who MUST follow Acts, Statues and legislation? A corporation. There are many words in blacks law that have been changed to mean something else. Need some more help understanding what I mean?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkbvJFEQgJU

If anyone has a brain in their head, they will wake the fuck up to this tyranny we all face. My whole point in this topic was this. Who truly believes ANYONE could put you in a small 4x4 cell for years at a time for doing something to your own body ie getting high. or for growing a natural reoccuring plant of this earth. Back before the FED, there was civil law and common law.. These are ACTUAL laws because they sum up to basically 3 different convictions. 1. Dont harm someone or their property. 2. Don't steal someones property. 3. Dont commit any acts of fraud. THATS IT.. But of course with the FED comming in the early 1900's they soon figured out a way to keep track of us, while making us slaves at the same time.. Birth Certificates.. All capital letters. So even before you can defend yourself your already a slave because no ones ever heard of this before and nobody thinks about things outside the box. Everyones so tuned into their own little box so much that they fail to see the liberties going bye-bye.

I close by saying WATCH that video, I'm not crazy folks.. the video can explain far better than I can in text. There are things I left out because you just wouldnt get it unless you see the video!!

I love all, and just want our freedoms back.. I dont intend on dissin anybody by this but please wake the fuck up.. history is repeating itself, were right in the middle of the government taking our lives whole.. Put down your cell phone, stop watching mind numbing shows like Jersey shore and all these REDICULAS fake reality shows.. FACE YOUR OWN REALITY. Never forget, the government is our public servants.. They have stopped acting as our servants and have made us their servants instead.. We have the right to rid them of the scene completly (It's in the constitution) STOP being walked on!! Were natural human being of this earth and have more rights than they could ever write down on paper.
PAYYYYCE

Edit: Thought I'd throw in some more shit to top the pile off. If you people think for 1 second the president or any high government offical has ever had the people in mind, you are sooo wrong. Bush, Clinton, Obama, Nixon , ford, Carter Ect. Ect. Ect. over 90% of presidents are BLOOD related to each other and there relations travel down a thin blood stream of ROYALTY.. queen of england, king george of the 15th century. Hell, George bush is a direct decendent of the first ruler of jerusalem. The first ruler of jerusalem was named godfrey de bouillon, he obtained his ruling title by waging war.. IMAGINE THAT.. Cant you people understand.. we are still the peasents of the 15th century, under the same rule.. just different generations. People in power have it for a reason, none of the reasons are good.. Britain left our countrys hundreds of years ago but the rulers didnt.

here are some statutes and references to back your words ... props 2 you hommie....word.

UNITED STATES CODE
Title 28 3002 (15)
(A)(B)(C)
The United States is a Corporation

Acts of the Fourty-First Congress
Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62
"An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia"


Senate Document 43, 73rd Congress, 1st session
"You own no property, slaves can't own property. Read the deed to the property that you think is yours. You are listed as a Tenant"

The Uniform Comercial Code presides over our Law of the Land.

this is crazy considering that the courts just ruled that corporations are people. So what is the U.S. now?

....getting the illy coil from the freezer.