From the February 2007 Idaho Observer:


We are taught since kindergarten that ours is a government of, by and for the people. As we grow up and experience government, we find a government of, by and for itself. What appears to have happened is the original "of-by-and-for-the-people" form of government originally chartered has been supplanted by a much different style of authority that is not very well described by the word "government." The "ESTABLISHMENT" works much better.

by LB Bork

The insurgency/rebellion

To have an understanding where this matter is coming from, one has to comprehend that the several States were replaced with an alternate State—or government if you will—after the so-called Civil War (it was really The War Between the States). The rightful state of each American republic was subverted by force and the operations of law that were established by the insidious 14th Amendment.

Pursuant to the operations of the 14th Amendment, the people that are participating in this new political/governmental system are "citizens of the United States (U.S. citizens or federal citizens)." Because of the operations of the amendment, those generally subject to this system are its participants; the major liability is set forth under Section 2 of the infamous amendment (See "Are you a party to the rebellion," The IO, May, 2006). The original constitutional system of law is still somewhat existent, but there has been a bifurcation, so to speak. . . in other words there are two systems of constitutional law present at once.

To best explain this, first we evidence the definition of government de facto that is taken from the law dictionary that judges use, Ballentine’s Law Dictionary:

  • de facto government. A new government which exercises undisputed sway over the entire country, the former established government having been nullified by successful rebellion or having lost the support of the people.

A de facto government arises where the established government has been subverted by rebellion, so that the new government exercises undisputed sway for the time being over the entire country, or where the people of any portion of a country subject to the same government throw off their allegiance to that government and establish one of their own, and show not only that they have established a government, but also their ability to maintain it.

~Am J Rev ed Internat L § 12 (International Law)

One must understand that in International Law—in which the Constitution is grounded—each state in the Union is a republic or country. From this you must understand that the states are primary and the United States can only exist due to the states—or people of the states. That means that a man owes his fidelity to his state or country, not the United States, per se. The operations of the 14th Amendment—along with brainwashing measures—make everyone incorrectly believe that they owe allegiance to the "federal" government. By the operations of the infamous amendment, the lawful state borders have, in a real sense, been eliminated and the several States are effectively one state, or country.

Again, this legally can only apply to those who claim to be United States citizens. Under international law, a state—i.e. country—has the ultimate control over its land. In American law, people of each state in the Union have the control over the land. However, because the majority of American people in the United States of America are participating in this insurgent governmental system, such land is considered to be held by this collective group, i.e. citizens of the United States. This possession of territory or land by this collective-rebellious group that are known as citizens of the United States is considered to be an adverse possession in law.

The people of their respective states who are not participating in the governmental system under the 14th Amendment have the right of control of the land or territory in their respective countries. However, the process of enforcing this "right" can be perilous.

To explain this matter as pursuant to law, you must look at the general definition of the term "possession" from a common dictionary, American Heritage Dictionary:

  • possession. Law. Actual holding or occupancy with or without rightful ownership. A territory subject to foreign control.

And now the definition pursuant to the rule of conquest as to International Law:

  • POSSESSION, international law. By possession is meant a country which is held by no other title than mere conquest. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856

And now the definition of possession as to the use of property from Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856:

  • POSSESSION, property. The detention or enjoyment of a thing which a man holds or exercises by himself or by another who keeps or exercises it in his name.

Now the definition of adverse possession from Ballentine’s Law Dictionary:

  • adverse possession. An actual and visible appropriation of property commenced and continued under for a claim of right inconsistent with and hostile to the claim of another. An open and notorious possession and occupation of real property under an evident claim or color of right; a possession in opposition to the true title and real owner—a possession which is commenced in wrong and maintained in right. ~3 Am J2d Adv P § 1

In a sense, the several American republics were conquered after the War Between the States. However, in a large sense this is not true. The simple fact is the land of the several American republics is being held or utilized by the United States and its States (governments) created under the 14th Amendment.

We of the Coalition refer to such States as the "14th Amendment states." These states—which their officers are elected or inserted by 14th Amendment citizens—are using the land for the collective sum of United States citizens. Such land is used by the United States for uses other than those constitutionally authorized. These "states" are instituting legislation for taxation, which includes pledges of the federal government. Another thing to consider in relation to adverse possessions are the so-called National Parks held by the federal government. Please note the conflict in the terms: National Park—federal government. Such parks are in regard to the approval of United States citizens or nationals of the United States; the parks are property of state nationals, not the United States and its citizens.


With the above established now we can explain "The Establishment." To do this let us use an act of the insurgent Congress entitled the Buck Act. This act solidified and also explains the possession premise of which will illustrate the federal area overlay that is created in the stealthy language in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and which generally only applies to citizens of the United States.

The Buck Act created so-called federal areas that are within the 14th Amendment states to deal with taxable persons; accordingly, these federal areas were created to only exist in relation to U.S. citizens or aliens that are permitted residence (see Title 26 USC § 7701(30)(A) which defines a citizen or resident of the United States).

Understand that these federal areas existed due to 14th Amendment operations of law; and if not by express law, under legal fictions, i.e. presumptions. The Buck Act was an express statement, or law, made by the de facto Congress that solidified it. Directly below is how the so-called "federal area" is illustrated under Title 4 of the United States Code:

  • Title 4 USC § 110. Same; definitions.

(d) The term "State" includes any possession of the United States.

(e) The term "Federal area" means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency, of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State.

First, you must understand that the term "State" is not truly defined by the Internal Revenue Code, nor—for that matter—is it clearly defined anywhere else in U.S. Code. Sometimes the term "State" is defined in the U.S. Code, but in the list of states defined the term "includes" is used. This is a deceptive trick that is used in the code and is found in the Definitions section. For example, note the use of the term includes as follows:

  • Title 26 USC § 7701c. Definitions - includes and including.

The terms "includes" and "including" when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined. (cited from the IRC)

The above trickery allows the agency or judge to have "free license" to add what may not be included on the list in question, i.e. this section of the code enlarges the scope.

Now back to the issue of the States: Sometimes the 50 states are referred to as the several States in U.S. Code, but not in the case of the Internal Revenue Code. This is irrefutable, as almost all the 50 states have implemented a state income tax; that is to say: the term "State" includes the several States. Accordingly, in reference to these matters, please note that in Title 4 USC § 110(d) that "State" includes the verbiage of "possession of the United States." In regard to the term "possession" as it is used in the United States Code, the term is only found defined in two places of said code:

1) Title 26 USC § 7701(d) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof, references in this title to possessions of the United States shall be treated as also referring to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

2) Title 8 USC § 1101(a)(29) The term "outlying possessions of the United States" means American Samoa and Swains Island.

Note the language in Title 26 USC § 7701(d) wherein it sets forth that possessions of the United States also refers to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. This establishes a principal that there may be other "possessions" that are not defined anywhere in U.S. Code; as in the other language of the definition, we would refer you to the loose term of "State" as defined by the Internal Revenue Code. Also note that possessions may be found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) defining some sections. These are matters that are taken under silent notice and then applying law and its rules.

With that established, now here are the several States—or the adverse possessions of the United States’ 14th Amendment States—defined as to income taxation imposed by one of the "several States" de facto as to the legal operations of the Buck Act:

  • Title 4 USC § 106. Same; income tax. (a) No person shall be relieved from liability for any income tax levied by any State, or by any duly constituted taxing authority therein, having jurisdiction to levy such a tax, by reason of his residing within a Federal area or receiving income from transactions occurring or services performed in such area; and such State or taxing authority shall have full jurisdiction and power to levy and collect such tax in any Federal area within such State to the same extent and with the same effect as though such area was not a Federal area.

What this is describing is: Congress exercising its special/private law on its citizens—or aliens admitted residence—that are "residents" in the 14th Amendment States.

Now to explain the complexity of the above definitions so that they make some sense, we must apply syntax and remove the unneeded verbiage of Title 4 USC § 110(e). After this is done we come up with this two-pronged synopsis of the description:

1) The term "Federal area" means any lands held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or establishment of the United States.

2) The term "Federal area" means any Federal area which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State.

If we look at #2 above we find that it is cleverly establishing that ANYWHERE in the State—i.e. the 14th Amendment State—is considered to be a "Federal area." Now to explain #1 which is a bit more complex. To help in this explanation we have to turn again to American Heritage Dictionary and look at the word "establishment." This term or word is very broad and encompassing and is defined as follows:

  • establishment, n. 1.a. The act of establishing. b. The condition or fact of being established. 2. Something established, as: a. An arranged order or system, especially a legal code. b. A permanent civil, political, or military organization.

As you can plainly see an establishment is considered a permanent civil, political, or military organization. The insurgent political system that is created under the 14th Amendment fits the statement conveying the fundamental characteristics of the word or term "establishment" perfectly. Such establishment was unlawfully created by the thing that is entitled the United States; hence the land or territory—in the sense of the word "territory" meaning an area—the territories within these federal areas are being used for the 14th Amendment governmental or political establishment.

A definition for "possession" is:

  • "A territory subject to foreign control."

One must understand that the United States is deemed "foreign" or is a "foreign state" to the several States (see Title 22 USC § 2659 for proof), except not in the absolute sense as to "ITS" self-created political 14th Amendment establishment, but in the original sense of the Union under pre-14th Amendment constitutional principles.

IN SUMMARY: The states in the Union make-up the United States, hence they are superior. The 14thAmendment reversed the operations of the way the Union politically operates. The fact of this new political "establishment" notwithstanding, it is still deemed to be quasi-foreign as to the United States. This unlawful establishment is "private" as if one participates he is tacitly agreeing to be governed by the governments de facto. This is all setup under the 14th Amendment political system, which includes some very evil operations of law. And, note that the following maxim of law applies to the ones benefiting from this Marxist system:

  • Invito beneficium non datur. No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent. But if he does not dissent, he will be considered as assenting.

One must understand the rightful owners are the ones that are not claiming United States citizenship and have secured state nationality. To somewhat recant what was stated about the land of each state being in adverse possession, such land is a legal fiction based on this premise; the rules of ignorance and/or fraud apply in this case, not factual conquest. It is not under conquest when people of right—i.e. state nationals—challenge it.

LB Bork is founder of The People’s Awareness Coalition and author of The Red Amendment—a comprehensive analysis of the 14th Amendment from its criminal ratification to its destructive operation in modern America. Originally published in 2001, The Red Amendment has been revised, expanded and now includes a 14th Amendment law review section. The Red Amendment (softcover, spiral bound, 176 pp.), arguably the most authoritative treatise on the 14th Amendment to date, is $25 per copy. The book is available through the People’s Awareness Coalition, PO Box 313, Kieler, Wisconsin Bork can be emailed at




14th Amendment slavery for all:

For those who believe the 14th Amendment only applies to blacks (i.e. ex-slaves) due to an opinion of some conspirator court, the following evidence shows the intent of said amendment as stated by one of its proponents:


Page 64. The Reconstruction Problem, speech of James Blaine, Skowhegan, Maine (August 29, 1866).

"In the first place, we ask that they will agree to certain changes in the Constitution of the United States; and, to begin with, we want them to unite with us in broadening the citizenship of the Republic. The slaves recently emancipated by proclamation, and subsequently by Constitutional Amendment, have no civil status. They should be made citizens. We do not, by making them citizens, make them voters,—we do not, in this Constitutional Amendment, attempt to force them upon Southern white men as equals at the ballot-box; but we do intend that they shall be admitted to citizenship, that they shall have the protection of the laws, that they shall not, any more than the rebels shall, be deprived of life, of liberty, of property, without due process of law, and that ‘they shall not be denied the equal protection of the law.’ And in making this extension of citizenship, we are not confining the breadth and scope of our efforts to the negro. It is for the white man as well. We intend to make citizenship National. Heretofore, a man has been a citizen of the United States because he was a citizen of some-one of the States: now, we propose to reverse that, and make him a citizen of any State where he chooses to reside, by defining in advance his National citizenship—and our Amendment declares that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.’ This Amendment will prove a great beneficence to this generation, and to all who shall succeed us in the rights of American citizenship; and we ask the people of the revolted States to consent to this condition as an antecedent step to their readmission to Congress with Senators and Representatives."

Home - Current Edition
Advertising Rate Sheet
About the Idaho Observer
Some recent articles
Some older articles
Why we're here
Our Writers
Corrections and Clarifications

Hari Heath

Vaccination Liberation -

The Idaho Observer
P.O. Box 457
Spirit Lake, Idaho 83869
Phone: 208-255-2307