:h: Welcome
to Team Law’s Forum!

We hold a Free Conference Call every: Monday, Wednesday & Friday morning from:
8:00 – 9:00 AM (Mountain Time).

Call: (857) 232-0158; use the Conference Access Code: 110045.

Join us on, and invite your friends to, our next Conference Call!

Use this Forum to contact Team Law;
use this link for more: contact information.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:

After reading this announcement, you may remove it by clicking the “X” in the upper right corner of the announcement's green background.

Qualifed Electors and Land Ownership

Use this forum for contacting Team Law regarding the original jurisdiction elections.

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

Markpvaz1
Registered
Posts: 2
Joined: Tuesday December 12th, 2006 11:01 pm MST

Qualifed Electors and Land Ownership

Postby Markpvaz1 » Sunday December 31st, 2006 3:37 pm MST

Hello,
Recently I was asked a question by a friend of mine. He wanted to know about qualified electors, and more specifically, where is it stated in either the state or federal constitution, that to be a qualified elector one must own land.
I searched the forums and teamlaw site, and hi and low on the internet trying to find some supporting evidence to that effect. No luck
I spent most of my efforts on the web looking for the original or de jure, "Arizona state constitution" with no luck. I did however find the Enabling Act of June 20,1910, but no mention of land and electors.
I also looked through the corporate "State of Arizona constitution", and of course did not find any mention there as expected.
My question is, where can I find the evidence in the law that connects land and electors. My friends question is an important one that I would like to be able to answer for both him and me, but as of yet I have not been able to. So any help to that end would be much appreciated.
Thank you now for your time and attention to this.
Mark

Aerochu
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 22
Joined: Saturday December 2nd, 2006 12:19 am MST

Postby Aerochu » Tuesday January 2nd, 2007 4:33 pm MST

I've been wondering about this myself. I thought that land ownership was considered one of the main criteria for determing electors, but I think the legislatures of the several states were who determined who could be an elector. I don't believe I have ever seen an original jurisdiction state constitution, but I doubt that the qualifications would be there. Rather, I believe it would be in the state statutes. An exhaustive search of those would probably be your best bet.

Markpvaz1
Registered
Posts: 2
Joined: Tuesday December 12th, 2006 11:01 pm MST

Postby Markpvaz1 » Wednesday January 3rd, 2007 1:17 am MST

aerochu,
Thank you for your reply. I have done a fair amount of searching through the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) . So far, this is closest I've been able to come up with, it is: SENATE BILL 1160
AN ACT
AMENDING SECTIONS 48-707, 48-717, 48-719 AND 48-723, ARIZONA REVISED
STATUTES; RELATING TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICTS.

At sec.: 48-707. Notice and conduct of elections; waiver ,part B, I found this:
For formation elections and elections held pursuant to subsection G of this section, a prospective elector shall execute an affidavit stating that the elector is the owner of land in the proposed district and is a qualified elector of this state or otherwise qualified to vote pursuant to section 48-3043 and stating the area of land in acres owned by the elector. Election board members may administer oaths or take all affirmations for these purposes. A community facilities district election held pursuant to this article is not subject to title 16, chapter 2, article 3.
I looked up Sec. 48-3043 and it states in part.

"48-3043. Qualifications of electors

A. In the acreage system of voting every bona fide owner of land within the district holding title or evidence of title of record, including entrymen upon public lands under the public land laws of the United States or a certificate of purchase from the state, who has held such title for ninety days and who is a resident of the state, shall be an elector of the district and entitled to one vote on each question submitted and to one vote for each office to be filled for each acre of land in the district owned by him, but not exceeding one thousand two hundred eighty votes. When the holder of record title is a married person, only the spouse in whose name the title stands may vote at such election. If record title is held in more than one name, each owner otherwise possessing the qualifications of an elector may vote the number or fractions of acres represented by his legal interest or proportionate share of and in the lands".

Title 48 has to do with - Special Taxing Districts. So, I'm not sure, but I don't think that this applies to an election on the Republic side of things, such as for Governor. It seems to be for creating special tax districts only, and is not what I'm looking for.
So I am still open to any help in this hunt.
Thank you

Geibes
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 116
Joined: Friday July 8th, 2005 12:34 pm MDT

Postby Geibes » Thursday January 4th, 2007 7:26 am MST

markpvaz1-
Using Team Law's admonition, you should tell your friend to do the research himself. That way he knows for sure how Electors are defined rather than taking yours, mine, Team Law's, or some other internet site's word for it. That having been said, here's what I found in about 15 minutes this morning.

First, searching the A.R.S. would not help you find what determines an Elector for the original jurisdiction government. Using the Standard for Review, I think you would find that the A.R.S. is a Corp Arizona document.

Second, what Electors are you trying to investigate? Assuming you're looking for original jurisdiction Electors, in Article I Section 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America, it states:
Constitution for the United States of America, blue highlighted by me wrote:The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
Yet in Article II, Section 1 of the same document, it states:
Ibid, blue highlighted by me wrote:The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
If I let the document speak for itself, these Electors have different qualifications. They could end up being the same people of course but wouldn't necessarily have to be. There also is a limited number of Electors for the President but no limit is placed on the number of Electors for Congress. To aerochu's point, the Senators from each state were "chosen by the Legislature thereof" according the Article II Section 3 of the Constitution for the United States of America so no Electors are involved.

Once you determine which Electors you are trying to define, you would have to research the documents that define them. For the House of Representatives, you would need to see what determines an Elector for the most numerous branch of the original jurisdiction Arizona legislature. I found a copy of Michigan's original Constitution right on the Corp State's web site in the Legislature section under Historical Documents. Perhaps you and aerochu would find the same for your states. In Michigan the Electors are the same for any election and they are:
Constitution of Michigan of 1835, Article II, Section 1, blue highlighted by me wrote:In all elections, every white male citizen above the age of twenty-one years, having resided in the state six months next preceding any election, shall be entitled to vote at such election; and every white male inhabitant of the age aforesaid, who may be a resident of this state at the tie [sic, probably should be 'time'] of the signing of this constitution, shall have the right of voting as aforesaid; but no such citizen or inhabitant shall be entitled to vote, except in the district, county, or township in which he shall actually reside at the time of such election.

I would have to do some more research to verify that "having resided in this state" and "a resident of this state" means they actually owned land but I'll leave that research to you (or your friend). I would check Michigan laws from around 1835 though, not the Corp State's Michigan Complied Laws.

One thing that is confusing to me is that Michigan also has Constitutions of 1850 and 1908. The 1850 one is from before the 1871 District of Columbia Organic Act but the 1908 one would be from after that Act passed. But both are before the Governer's Conference of 1962 which prompted the states to become sub corps of Corp US. At some point I should look into the additional Constitutions of Michigan, but that's not directly related to this thread.

Hope that helps. Tell everyone about Team Law!
Geibes
Education is bliss!

Aerochu
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 22
Joined: Saturday December 2nd, 2006 12:19 am MST

Postby Aerochu » Thursday January 4th, 2007 9:08 pm MST

It looks like I was mistaken with my presumption that you wouldn't find the qualifications for electors in the state constitution. From the original text of the Virginia Constitution of 1776:
...The House of Delegates, and consist of two Representatives, to be chosen for each county, and for the district of West-Augusta, annually, of such men as actually reside in, and are freeholders of the same, or duly qualified according to law
Arizona's original constitution could have the same text. Of course, I've just learned that the VA constitution had a number of major revisions in 1830, 1851, 1864, 1870, 1902, and 1971, I found a source (unconfirmed as yet) that stated:
By the 1820s, Virginia was one of only two states that limited voting to landowners...
This was the reason behind the convening for the 1830 revision. The 1851 revision, apparently, made it so that all free white men could vote. (I say apparently because I haven't actually found/read the documents yet, only a synopsis of the changes.) So it's very possible that your state does not require land ownership for suffrage. Hope that helps some.

As a side note: I'm eager to find out the differences in the last revision, and to discover evidence of the Corp. State. Surely, I don't find it a coincidence that it was during that time span that Team Law claimed the state governments formed corporations.

Geibes
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 116
Joined: Friday July 8th, 2005 12:34 pm MDT

Postby Geibes » Friday January 5th, 2007 5:48 am MST

Good work aerochu! :ro I've found that it's pretty enlightening when I do the actual research myself. However, it's nice to have Team Law to bounce my results off of and I know Admin and the other forum users appreciate it as well. Keep up the good work!
Geibes
Education is bliss!

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1574
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Electors = Landowners

Postby Admin » Friday January 12th, 2007 4:52 pm MST

:h: Markpvaz1, Aerochu & Geibes:
Though we appreciate your efforts regarding the subject and even more you actual research of the law and of the code, you have not yet hit the mark of why we follow the process of securing landowners in the office of Governor and of President of the United States of America, as well as focus on that same thing for the Electoral College. The reason we focus our efforts there on landowners is more of a historical matter than any recent legislative adjustment to the code. As is described in the Standard for Review, if you want to understand any relationship you have to first understand who the parties are and second you have to understand the environment of the relationship. Thus to understand any such matter we must go back and review the history. So far as elections go and the use of the term “Elector”, we must go back to the beginning of this country and its foundational history to understand the meaning of the term Elector as it is used in the Constitution for the United States of America. To get there we must go back to the time before the Constitution for the United States of America was formed, even prior to the War of Independence, we look to the reasons people started coming to America in the first place.

Great Britain tried to settle this land with no success. Every time anyone was sent here to participate in colonizing “the New World”, they died. Finally, the King of Great Britain set about with a new plan; he would grant the people allodial title to the Land itself and secure that grant by patent. The first people to accept that offer were the Puritans, who had seven years before returned from Holland (where they had fled to avoid religious persecution in England). After seven years of negotiating, they finally settled on the agreement that the King would grant them allodial title (fee simple title) to the land with the sovereign right of self-government if they would agree to pay the King 50% of the production from their land for seven years to pay for their passage to the “New World”. When they landed, they formed their Charter recognizing their right to the same (The Mayflower Compact). Then they took up pursuit of living life as free naturally sovereign people, each one of them recognized as free and independently sovereign.

When those settlers proved it could be done, people began coming to America in droves. The name the King had given to the land was Virginia, but as soon the settlers were free from their original debts to the King they began to form their own independent nation states; with names of their own choosing. Ultimately, 13 of these independent nation states had formed by their own rights to self-government. When the French American War broke out Great Britain jumped in to protect its lucrative contract trade with said states. After the war, rather than bringing all of the troops home, Great Britain left a substantial body of soldiers here to prevent further attacks. (We’ve told this story elsewhere in our materials and anyone can look up the history. In fact we always hope they will.) The British war debts had tripled British taxes on the people of England where the people were near revolting. They could not understand why the “colonists” could not pay for their own war. To resolve the matter the British Parliament resolved several schemes to generate taxable revenue from the “colony”.

When Great Britain tried to execute their Parliamentary Law over the colonies, the main complaint here was the fact that Great Britain had no such authority. Their Parliament was ill equipped to even consider setting forth laws here; ‘none of the Englishmen sitting in Parliament were even Landowners, how could they even begin to understand the rights of people in a country where 80% of the population were free natural independent sovereign landowners each owning 50 acres of land or more?’ The resolve of the matter was to set a Parliament of our own. When the independent states set their first Parliament, they required only “Electors” could participate in either the election of the members of Parliament or in the actual seats. They established that an Elector was a person who owned 50 acres of land or more. That understanding of the term continued right up through the formation of the Constitution for the United States of America. The meaning was well understood at that time and even though only a few States may have explicitly noted in their constitutions that electors were by definition landowners, all of the people at that time understood that.

Now, with that history we look at a simple elemental fact established purely by legal reason: Can a man be set in the office of Governor where he will have the power to grant and sign land patents to landowners if he does not even own land himself (or accordingly understand what landownership is). We say no. Secondly, where the States of the Union that have entered into the Union since the original 13 colonies came into the Union with “equal footing”, does it not stand to reason that the meaning of the terms in use at the time of the nations formation into a Constitutional Republic would remain the same even though modern people may not study the law or our history and accordingly do not know the meaning of such terms. It not only stands to reason, it is a historical fact. Thus, in the relation of Presidential elections held in the Electoral College, this must be such a body of Electors, regardless of subsequent reinterpretations of terms in law.
We are working to legally and lawfully put back in place a lawfully elected original jurisdiction President of the United States of America, who will be confirmed in office by a fully seated original jurisdiction United States Senate.

So to that end, we want to leave no stone unturned to legally and lawfully seat an original jurisdiction President of the United States of America, we make sure that all of the people we support for the original jurisdiction State Governors or original jurisdiction United States Senate are landowners. It only make sense, if the President of the United States of America has the poser to grant and sign land patents for the United States of America he should also be a landowner himself such that he can understand it.

Of course, if this is a more limiting standard than others want to recognize is lawfully required, then they certainly will not have a problem with any candidate we support. You must all realize that Team Law has no authority over any governmental elections anywhere, we only do what we can to help the people learn the law and our history so that we can legally and lawfully win our country back.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Last edited by Admin on Monday January 29th, 2007 1:33 pm MST, edited 1 time in total.
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.

Mpaepcke
Registered
Posts: 3
Joined: Thursday November 2nd, 2006 12:33 pm MST

Postby Mpaepcke » Monday January 15th, 2007 11:21 am MST

If one or more states end up without an oj governor after this past election, is there some sort of provision that allows for emergency mid term elections?

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1574
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Postby Admin » Monday January 15th, 2007 1:22 pm MST

:h: Mpaepcke:
There is but it is not an easy thing to accomplish. The people have the right to change their government at any time they desire. We have seen several examples of this very thing happening. The process is accomplished by every elector being contacted in the state and informed of the matter and of a meeting wherein a solution will be resolved. The key here is every single person with any chance of being an elector must be personally contacted and informed that a challenge has been brought and that a meeting will be held to resolve the matter. Then the meeting is accordingly held. An election of a judge over the matter takes place and a review board is elected over the matter. Ultimately, a vote is set up, the special election is accomplished in accord with the law and the officers are elected and seated. There are more details but this brief review of the process should be sufficient for this answer at this time.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.

Kiltit
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 6
Joined: Tuesday July 31st, 2007 10:04 pm MDT

Alabama O.J. Governor

Postby Kiltit » Friday August 17th, 2007 12:03 am MDT

Hello. I'm not new to Teamlaw. I just haven't had any relevant things to say. I do, however, have a question now. Reading what you posted, and knowing that Alabama did not have a O.J. Govenor elected in 06. Then how is it possible to have a Govenor 9 mons after the elections are over? Was there a challenge brought forward to get the vacated seat filled? I only ask because after sending an email to the new Govenor of Alabama, Mr. Erving, and not receiving a reply, I had no other source of information to turn to.
I have read the pages of TEAMLAW and continually reread them every chance I get. I also send everyone I know hyperlinks here just to expose them to a very bright light. I love the light.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1574
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Alabama O.J. Governor

Postby Admin » Friday August 17th, 2007 10:22 am MDT

:h: Kiltit:
We do not know how you would know there were no electoral votes cast in a timely manner for a governor of Alabama in 2006. Records presented to us indicated that Governor Erving received such votes, even though we did not get the page updated until we did. We expect Governor Erving has at least qualified as a governor elect even if he has not taken the seat. Team Law has no authority over State elections so we only report the information we receive. We do that for several reasons:
  1. It presents a visible front showing activity pressing forward to unite the people on the front of reseating the original jurisdiction governments of the States in the United States of America.
  2. It provides a place where any contest over an election of an original jurisdiction governor can be heard and resolved.
  3. It is a forerunner for the future effort to reseat the original jurisdiction Electoral College so we can secure the support necessary to re-elect a President of the United States of America through that College.
One of the misconceptions people often have is that they should contact the governors. Though it is at times possible, at this stage of the process it is not necessary for two primary reasons:
  1. Original jurisdiction governors govern the government not the people; therefore, there is little call for the people to contact them; and,
  2. Most people carry out virtually all of their activities wherein they might perceive a need to contact the governor through some Corp. U.S. or Corp. State agency capacity (like that of the Social Security Administration created trust—a.k.a. ‘taxpayer’), which capacities have nothing to do with the original jurisdiction State governors.
There is one reason people might want to contact an original jurisdiction governor, that is to offer support; but, that does not mean those governors will be easy to contact. In fact, most of them have lives of their own they do not want interfered with. Thus, it is always a good thing to respect their privacy. Now is not the time to try to get the original jurisdiction government to protect people’s individual rights against the Corp. State. We know the President Pro Tempore of the original jurisdiction national Senate has asked all of the governors to take no action other than to build local electoral support with family, friends, etc., to study the constitutions (State and national) and study the Corp. State’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. We hope they will each do that but know (from experience) some will not, just as some of the governors will be good servants to their responsibilities and some will not.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.

Kiltit
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 6
Joined: Tuesday July 31st, 2007 10:04 pm MDT

Hidden Agenda

Postby Kiltit » Tuesday August 28th, 2007 12:27 am MDT

I'll start by saying, I'm sorry. We, being several concerned Americans including Mr. Erving, have all been engauged in learning about the Original Jurisdictional Government, and how we could be a part of restoring it. Since the time we were updated to the fact that Mr Erving was the O.J. Alabama Governor, we have not had the priviledge of hearing it from him. We want very much to be part of, or help in anyway we can. We were unable to contact the predecessor of Mr Erving, following his leaving the position of the O.J. Alabama Governor.(We were informed though sorces in our "trusted" group that the seat was vacated prematurely) We had no idea that Mr. Erving had indeed attained the position of O.J. Alabama Governor. Apparently, he did this on his own, and in secret. All the while, allowing us, the group, to continue on as if nothing had ever changed in the status of the O.J. Alabama Governors seat.
So, now that I reflect on what has transpired. We were left in the dark by one of our own. I do feel a bit foolish now. I should have not relied on others to keep me abreast of the status of our seat here in Alabama. I will be more diligent in the pursuits reguarding such important information. I can see now that if I want an honest, reliable servant of the people, then I must be the one to step up and do it myself. It's simple, if you can't trust the ones that your involved with to be a part of such a monumental undertaking, reseating the OJG, then who can you trust. :dontknow:

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1574
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Hidden Agenda

Postby Admin » Tuesday August 28th, 2007 6:44 am MDT

:h: Kiltit:
It is nice to hear that there are people in Alabama that are interested or even aware of the fact that there is an original jurisdiction government and that there are people like us that are doing all we can to support getting our government back. The person that was elected before never took the seat. We have no evidence that Governor Elect Erving has taken the seat either. We are pleased that a vote was cast in a timely manner for someone. That is the first step.

As to the implication that Mr. Erving did anything in secret is absurd. The vote that was case was cast in the Clerk and Recorder’s Office, which is a public record. Anyone can do it and the fact that we have evidence that one vote was cast is enough to set a governor if there are no other votes.

We are pleased to see that there are others interested in restoring our original jurisdiction government in Alabama and we hope to find such people in every State. We are especially pleased to hear that you have vowed to take a more diligent pursuit of securing a Governor in Alabama.

The simple fact remains that anyone willing to serve can, if they are either elected or lawfully appointed. Election only takes one more vote than any other person casts. That means that if you were intent on being elected all you would have to do is vote for yourself and have one other person vote for you and you would have had more votes than the governor elect. Then you would be Governor and you could do the job. We do not know why anyone would attempt to trust parties they do not know and leave the election completely up to others.

Anyone that is currently a governor elect can simply take the seat and appoint a Lt. Governor, then vacate the seat of Governor and the new governor is it. Thus, it is possible that the governor elect is simply waiting for such support. Meanwhile, there is little for an original jurisdiction governor to do at this time other than to study and prepare.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.


Return to “Elections”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest