Now! The United States is still a British Colony
The United States is still a British Colony
The trouble with history is, we weren't there when it took place and it can be changed to fit someone's belief and/or traditions, or it can be taught in the public schools to favor a political agenda, and withhold many facts. I know you have been taught that we won the Revolutionary War and defeated the British, but I can prove to the contrary. I want you to read this paper with an open mind, and allow yourself to be instructed with the following verifiable facts. You be the judge and don't let prior conclusions on your part or incorrect teaching, keep you from the truth.
I too was always taught in school and in studying our history books that our freedom came from the Declaration of Independence and was secured by our winning the Revolutionary War. I'm going to discuss a few documents that are included at the end of this paper, in the footnotes. The first document is the first Charter of Virginia in 1606 (footnote #1). In the first paragraph, the king of England granted our fore fathers license to settle and colonize America. The definition for license is as follows.
"In Government Regulation. Authority to do some act or carry on some trade or business, in its nature lawful but prohibited by statute, except with the permission of the civil authority or which would otherwise be unlawful." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914.
Keep in mind those that came to America from England were British subjects. So you can better understand what I'm going to tell you, here are the definitions for subject and citizen.
"In monarchical governments, by subject is meant one who owes permanent allegiance to the monarch." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914.
"Constitutional Law. One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws. The natives of Great Britain are subjects of the British government. Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government." Swiss Nat. Ins. Co. v. Miller, 267 U.S. 42, 45 S. Ct. 213, 214, 69 L.Ed. 504. Blacks fifth Ed.
I chose to give the definition for subject first, so you could better understand what definition of citizen is really being used in American law. Below is the definition of citizen from Roman law.
"The term citizen was used in Rome to indicate the possession of private civil rights, including those accruing under the Roman family and inheritance law and the Roman contract and property law. All other subjects were peregrines. But in the beginning of the 3d century the distinction was abolished and all subjects were citizens; 1 sel. Essays in Anglo-Amer. L. H. 578." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914.
The king was making a commercial venture when he sent his subjects to America, and used his money and resources to do so. I think you would admit the king had a lawful right to receive gain and prosper from his venture. In the Virginia Charter he declares his sovereignty over the land and his subjects and in paragraph 9 he declares the amount of gold, silver and copper he is to receive if any is found by his subjects. There could have just as easily been none, or his subjects could have been killed by the Indians. This is why this was a valid right of the king (Jure Coronae, "In right of the crown," Black's forth Ed.), the king expended his resources with the risk of total loss.
If you'll notice in paragraph 9 the king declares that all his heirs and successors were to also receive the same amount of gold, silver and copper that he claimed with this Charter. The gold that remained in the colonies was also the kings. He provided the remainder as a benefit for his subjects, which amounted to further use of his capital. You will see in this paper that not only is this valid, but it is still in effect today. If you will read the rest of the Virginia Charter you will see that the king declared the right and exercised the power to regulate every aspect of commerce in his new colony. A license had to be granted for travel connected with transfer of goods (commerce) right down to the furniture they sat on. A great deal of the king's declared property was ceded to America in the Treaty of 1783. I want you to stay focused on the money and the commerce which was not ceded to America.
This brings us to the Declaration of Independence. Our freedom was declared because the king did not fulfill his end of the covenant between king and subject. The main complaint was taxation without representation, which was reaffirmed in the early 1606 Charter granted by the king. It was not a revolt over being subject to the king of England, most wanted the protection and benefits provided by the king. Because of the kings refusal to hear their demands and grant relief, separation from England became the lesser of two evils. The cry of freedom and self determination became the rallying cry for the colonist. The slogan "Don't Tread On Me" was the standard borne by the militias.
The Revolutionary War was fought and concluded when Cornwallis surrendered to Washington at Yorktown. As Americans we have been taught that we defeated the king and won our freedom. The next document I will use is the Treaty of 1783, which will totally contradict our having won the Revolutionary War. (footnote 2).
I want you to notice in the first paragraph that the king refers to himself as prince of the Holy Roman Empire and of the United States. You know from this that the United States did not negotiate this Treaty of peace in a position of strength and victory, but it is obvious that Benjamin Franklin, John Jay and John Adams negotiated a Treaty of further granted privileges from the king of England. Keep this in mind as you study these documents. You also need to understand the players of those that negotiated this Treaty. For the Americans it was Benjamin Franklin Esgr., a great patriot and standard bearer of freedom. Or was he? His title includes Esquire.
An Esquire in the above usage was a granted rank and Title of nobility by the king, which is below Knight and above a yeoman, common man. An Esquire is someone that does not do manual labor as signified by this status, see the below definitions.
"Esquires by virtue of their offices; as justices of the peace, and others who bear any office of trust under the crown....for whosever studieth the laws of the realm, who studieth in the universities, who professeth the liberal sciences, and who can live idly, and without manual labor, and will bear the port, charge, and countenance of a gentleman, he shall be called master, and shall be taken for a gentleman." Blackstone Commentaries p. 561-562
"Esquire - In English Law. A title of dignity next above gentleman, and below knight. Also a title of office given to sheriffs, serjeants, and barristers at law, justices of the peace, and others." Blacks Law Dictionary fourth ed. p. 641
Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and John Jay as you can read in the Treaty were all Esquires and were the signers of this Treaty and the only negotiators of the Treaty. The representative of the king was David Hartley Esqr..
Benjamin Franklin was the main negotiator for the terms of the Treaty, he spent most of the War traveling between England and France. The use of Esquire declared his and the others British subjection and loyalty to the crown.
In the first article of the Treaty most of the kings claims to America are relinquished, except for his claim to continue receiving gold, silver and copper as gain for his business venture. Article 3 gives Americans the right to fish the waters around the United States and its rivers. In article 4 the United States agreed to pay all bona fide debts. If you will read my other papers on money you will understand that the financiers were working with the king. Why else would he protect their interest with this Treaty?
I wonder if you have seen the main and obvious point? This Treaty was signed in 1783, the war was over in 1781. If the United States defeated England, how is the king granting rights to America, when we were now his equal in status? We supposedly defeated him in the Revolutionary War! So why would these supposed patriot Americans sign such a Treaty, when they knew that this would void any sovereignty gained by the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War? If we had won the Revolutionary War, the king granting us our land would not be necessary, it would have been ours by his loss of the Revolutionary War. To not dictate the terms of a peace treaty in a position of strength after winning a war; means the war was never won. Think of other wars we have won, such as when we defeated Japan. Did McArther allow Japan to dictate to him the terms for surrender? No way! All these men did is gain status and privilege granted by the king and insure the subjection of future unaware generations. Worst of all, they sold out those that gave their lives and property for the chance to be free.
When Cornwallis surrendered to Washington he surrendered the battle, not the war. Read the Article of Capitulation signed by Cornwallis at Yorktown (footnote 3)
Jonathan Williams recorded in his book, Legions of Satan, 1781, that Cornwallis revealed to Washington during his surrender that "a holy war will now begin on America, and when it is ended America will be supposedly the citadel of freedom, but her millions will unknowingly be loyal subjects to the Crown."...."in less than two hundred years the whole nation will be working for divine world government. That government that they believe to be divine will be the British Empire."
All the Treaty did was remove the United States as a liability and obligation of the king. He no longer had to ship material and money to support his subjects and colonies. At the same time he retained financial subjection through debt owed after the Treaty, which is still being created today; millions of dollars a day. And his heirs and successors are still reaping the benefit of the kings original venture. If you will read the following quote from Title 26, you will see just one situation where the king is still collecting a tax from those that receive a benefit from him, on property which is purchased with the money the king supplies, at almost the same percentage:
26 USC Sec. 1491
Sec. 1491. Imposition of tax
There is hereby imposed on the transfer of property by a citizen or resident of the United States, or by a domestic corporation or partnership, or by an estate or trust which is not a foreign estate or trust, to a foreign corporation as paid-in surplus or as a contribution to capital, or to a foreign estate or trust, or to a foreign partnership, an excise tax equal to 35 percent of the excess of -
(1) the fair market value of the property so transferred, over
(2) the sum of -
(A) the adjusted basis (for determining gain) of such property in the hands of the transferor, plus
(B) the amount of the gain recognized to the transferor at the time of the transfer.
(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 365; Oct. 4, 1976, Pub. L. 94-455, title X, Sec. 1015(a), 90 Stat. 1617; Nov. 6, 1978, Pub. L. 95-600, title VII, Sec. 701(u)(14)(A), 92 Stat. 2919.)
1978 - Pub. L. 95-600 substituted 'estate or trust' for 'trust' wherever appearing.
1976 - Pub. L. 94-455 substituted in provisions preceding par.
(1) 'property' for 'stocks and securities' and '35 percent' for '27 1/2 percent' and in par.
(1) 'fair market value' for 'value' and 'property' for 'stocks and securities' and in par.
(2) designated existing provisions as subpar. (A) and added subpar. (B).
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1978 AMENDMENT
Section 701(u)(14)(C) of Pub. L. 95-600 provided that: 'The amendments made by this paragraph (amending this section and section 1492 of this title) shall apply to transfers after October 2, 1975.'
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1976 AMENDMENT
Section 1015(d) of Pub. L. 94-455 provided that: 'The amendments made by this section (enacting section 1057 of this title, amending this section and section 1492 of this title, and renumbering former section 1057 as 1058 of this title) shall apply to transfers of property after October 2, 1975.'
A new war was declared when the Treaty was signed. The king wanted his land back and he knew he would be able to regain his property for his heirs with the help of his world financiers. Here is a quote from the king speaking to Parliament after the Revolutionary War had concluded.
(Six weeks after) the capitulation of Yorktown, the king of Great Britain, in his speech to Parliament (Nov. 27, 1781), declared "That he should not answer the trust committed to the sovereign of a free people, if he consented to sacrifice either to his own desire of peace, or to their temporary ease and relief, those essential rights and permanent interests, upon the maintenance and preservation of which the future strength and security of the country must forever depend." The determined language of this speech, pointing to the continuance of the American war, was echoed back by a majority of both Lords and Commons.
In a few days after (Dec. 12), it was moved in the House of Commons that a resolution should be adopted declaring it to be their opinion "That all farther attempts to reduce the Americans to obedience by force would be ineffectual, and injurious to the true interests of Great Britain." The rest of the debate can be found in (footnote 4). What were the true interests of the king? The gold, silver and copper.
The new war was to be fought without Americans being aware that a war was even being waged, it was to be fought by subterfuge and key personnel being placed in key positions. The first two parts of "A Country Defeated In Victory," go into detail about how this was done and exposes some of the main players.
Every time you pay a tax you are transferring your labor to the king, and his heirs and successors are still receiving interest from the original American Charters.
The following is the definition of tribute (tax).
"A contribution which is raised by a prince or sovereign from his subjects to sustain the expenses of the state. A sum of money paid by an inferior sovereign or state to a superior potentate, to secure the friendship or protection of the latter." Blacks Law Dictionary forth ed. p. 1677
As further evidence, not that any is needed, a percentage of taxes that are paid are to enrich the king/queen of England. For those that study Title 26 you will recognize IMF, which means Individual Master File, all tax payers have one. To read one you have to be able to break their codes using file 6209, which is about 467 pages. On your IMF you will find a blocking series, which tells you what type of tax you are paying. You will probably find a 300-399 blocking series, which 6209 says is reserved. You then look up the BMF 300-399, which is the Business Master File in 6209. You would have seen prior to 1991, this was U.S.-U.K. Tax Claims, non-refile DLN. Meaning everyone is considered a business and involved in commerce and you are being held liable for a tax via a treaty between the U.S. and the U.K., payable to the U.K.. The form that is supposed to be used for this is form 8288, FIRPTA - Foreign Investment Real Property Tax Account, you won't find many people using this form, just the 1040 form. The 8288 form can be found in the Law Enforcement Manual of the IRS, chapter 3. If you will check the OMB's paper - Office of Management and Budget, in the Department of Treasury, List of Active Information Collections, Approved Under Paperwork Reduction Act, you will find this form under OMB number 1545-0902, which says U.S. withholding tax-return for dispositions by foreign persons of U.S. real property interests-statement of withholding on dispositions, by foreign persons, of U.S. Form #8288 #8288a. These codes have since been changed to read as follows; IMF 300-309, Barred Assement, CP 55 generated valid for MFT-30, which is the code for 1040 form. IMF 310-399 reserved, the BMF 300-309 reads the same as IMF 300-309. BMF 390-399 reads U.S./U.K. Tax Treaty Claims. The long and short of it is nothing changed, the government just made it plainer, the 1040 is the payment of a foreign tax to the king/queen of England. We have been in financial servitude since the Treaty of 1783.
Another Treaty between England and the United States was Jay's Treaty of 1794 (footnote 5). If you will remember from the Paris Treaty of 1783, John Jay Esqr. was one of the negotiators of the Treaty. In 1794 he negotiated another Treaty with Britain. There was great controversy among the American people about this Treaty.
In Article 2 you will see the king is still on land that was supposed to be ceded to the United States at the Paris Treaty. This is 13 years after America supposedly won the Revolutionary War. I guess someone forgot to tell the king of England. In Article 6, the king is still dictating terms to the United States concerning the collection of debt and damages, the British government and World Bankers claimed we owe. In Article 12 we find the king dictating terms again, this time concerning where and with who the United States could trade. In Article 18 the United States agrees to a wide variety of material that would be subject to confiscation if Britain found said material going to its enemies ports. Who won the Revolutionary War?
That's right, we were conned by some of our early fore fathers into believing that we are free and sovereign people, when in fact we had the same status as before the Revolutionary War. I say had, because our status is far worse now than then. I'll explain.
Early on in our history the king was satisfied with the interest made by the Bank of the United States. But when the Bank Charter was canceled in 1811 it was time to gain control of the government, in order to shape government policy and public policy. Have you never asked yourself why the British, after burning the White House and all our early records during the War of 1812, left and did not take over the government. The reason they did, was to remove the greatest barrier to their plans for this country. That barrier was the newly adopted 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The purpose for this Amendment was to stop anyone from serving in the government who was receiving a Title of nobility or honor. It was and is obvious that these government employees would be loyal to the granter of the Title of nobility or honor.
The War of 1812 served several purposes. It delayed the passage of the 13th Amendment by Virginia, allowed the British to destroy the evidence of the first 12 states ratification of this Amendment, and it increased the national debt, which would coerce the Congress to reestablish the Bank Charter in 1816 after the Treaty of Ghent was ratified by the Senate in 1815.
| Part 2 |
The United States is Still a British Colony
Bend Over America
It's not an easy thing having to tell someone they have been conned into believing they are free. For some, to accept this is comparable to denying God Almighty.
You have to be made to understand that the United States is a corporation, which is a continuation of the corporate Charters created by the king of England. And that the states upon ratifying their individual State constitutions, became sub corporations under and subordinate to the United States. The counties and municipalities became sub corporations under the State Charters. It is my duty to report further evidence concerning the claims I made in "The United States is Still a British Colony, part 1."
I have always used a copy of the North Carolina Constitution provided by the State, I should have known better to take this as the finial authority. To my knowledge the following quote has not been in the Constitution the State hands out or those in use in the schools. The 1776 North Carolina Constitution created a new corporate Charter, and declared our individual freedoms. However, the same corporate Charter, reserved the king's title to the land, which restored, and did not diminish, his grants that were made in his early Charters. If you remember, I made the claim that legally we are still subject to the king. In the below quote you will see that the king declares our taxation will be forever, and that a fourth of all gold and silver will be returned to him.
"YIELDlNG AND PAYING yearly, to us, our heirs and Successors, for the same, the yearly Rent of Twenty Marks of Lawful money of England, at the Feast of All Saints, yearly, forever, The First payment thereof to begin and be made on the Feast of All Saints which shall be in the year of Our Lord One thousand six hundred Sixty and five; AND also, the fourth part of all Gold and Silver Ore which, with the limits aforesaid, shall, from time to time, happen to be found."
(Feast of All Saints occurred November 1 of each year.)
The Carolina Charter, 1663 footnote #5
I know Patriots will have a hard time with this, because as I said earlier, they would have to deny what they have been taught from an early age. You have to continue to go back in historical documents and see if what you have been taught is correct. The following quote is from section 25 of the 1776 North Carolina Constitution, Declaration of Rights.
And provided further, that nothing herein contained shall affect the titles or possessions of individuals holding or claiming under the laws heretofore in force, or grants heretofore made by the late King George II, or his predecessors, or the late lords proprietors, or any of them.
Declaration of Rights 1776, North Carolina Constitution, Footnote #8
Can it be any plainer? Nobody reads, they take what is told to them by their schools and government as gospel, and never look any further. They are quick to attack anyone that does because it threatens their way of life, rocks the boat in other words. Read the following quote from a court case:
"* * * definition given by Blackstone, vol. 2, p. 244. I shall therefore only cite that respectable authority in his own words: "Escheat, we may remember, was one of the fruits and consequences of feudal tenure; the word itself is originally French or Norman, in which language it signifies chance or accident, and with us denotes an obstruction of the course of descent, and a consequent determination of the tenure by some unforeseen contingency, in which case the estate naturally results back, by a kind of reversion, to the original grantor, or lord of the fee."
Every person knows in what manner the citizens acquired the property of the soil within the limits of this State. Being dissatisfied with the measures of the British Government, they revolted from it, assumed the government into their own hands, seized and took possession of all the estates of the King of Great Britain and his subjects, appropriated them to their own use, and defended their possessions against the claims of Great Britain, during a long and bloody war, and finally obtained a relinquishment of those claims by the treaty of Paris. But this State had no title to the territory prior to the title of the King of Great Britain and his subjects, nor did it ever claim as lord paramount to them. This State was not the original grantor to them, nor did they ever hold by any kind of tenure under the State, or owe it any allegiance or other duties to which an escheat is annexed. How then can it be said that the lands in this case naturally result back by a kind of reversion to this State, to a source from whence it never issued, and from tenants who never held under it? Might it not be stated with equal propriety that this country escheated to the King of Great Britain from the Aborigines, when he drove them off, and took and maintained possession of their country? At the time of the revolution, and before the Declaration of Independence, the collective body of the people had neither right to nor possession of the territory of this State; it is true some individuals had a right to, and were in possession of certain portions of it, which they held under grants from the King of Great Britain; but they did not hold, nor did any of his subjects hold, under the collective body of the people, who had no power to grant any part of it. After the Declaration of Independence and the establishment of the Constitution, the people may be said first to have taken possession of this country, at least so much of it as was not previously appropriated to individuals. Then their sovereignty commenced, and with it a right to all the property not previously vested in individual citizens, with all the other rights of sovereignty, and among those the right of escheats. This sovereignty did not accrue to them by escheat, but by conquest, from the King of Great Britain and his subjects; but they acquired nothing by that means from the citizens of the State Ä each individual had, under this view of the case, a right to retain his private property, independent of the reservation in the declaration of rights; but if there could be any doubt on that head, it is clearly explained and obviated by the proviso in that instrument. Therefore, whether the State took by right of conquest or escheat, all the interest which the U. K. had previous to the Declaration of Independence still remained with them, on every principle of law and equity, because they are purchasers for a valuable consideration, and being in possession as cestui que trust under the statute for transferring uses into possession; and citizens of this State, at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and at the time of making the declaration of rights, their interest is secured to them beyond the reach of any Act of Assembly; neither can it be affected by any principle arising from the doctrine of escheats, supposing, what I do not admit, that the State took by escheat."
MARSHALL v. LOVELESS, 1 N.C. 412 (1801), 2 S.A. 70
There was no way we could have had a perfected title to this land. Once we had won the Revolutionary War we would had to have had an unconditional surrender by the king, this did not take place. Not what took place at Yorktown, when we let the king off the hook. Barring this, the king would have to had sold us this land, for us to have a perfected title, just as the Indians sold their land to the king, or the eight Carolina Proprietors sold Carolina back to the king. The treaty of 1783 did not remove his claim and original title, because he kept the minerals. This was no different than when king Charles II gave Carolina by Charter to the lords that helped put him back in power; compare them and you will see the end result is the same. The Charter to the lords is footnote #6, where eight proprietors were given title to the land, but the king retained the money and sovereignty for his heirs. The king could not just give up America to the colonialist, nor would he. He would violate his own law of Mortmain to put these lands in dead hands, no longer to be able to be used by himself, or his heirs and successors. He would also be guilty of harming his heirs and successors, by giving away that which he declared in the following quotes, and there are similar quotes in the other Charters:
"SAVING always, the Faith, Allegiance, and Sovereign Dominion due to us, our heirs and Successors, for the same; and Saving also, the right, title, and interest of all and every our Subjects of the English Nation which are now Planted within the Limits bounds aforesaid, if any be;..." The Carolina Charter, 1663 footnote #5
"KNOW YE, that We, of our further grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, HAVE thought fit to Erect the same Tract of Ground, Country, and Island into a Province, and, out of the fullness of our Royal power and Prerogative, WE Do, for us, our heirs and Successors, Erect, Incorporate, and Ordain the same into a province, and do call it the Province of CAROLINA, and so from henceforth will have it called..."
The Carolina Charter, 1663 footnote #5
The U.S. Constitution is a treaty between the states creating a corporation for the king. In the below quote pay attention to the large "S" State and the small "s" state. The large "S" State is referring to the corporate State and it's sovereignty over the small "s" state, because of the treaty.
Read the following quote:
"Headnote 5. Besides, the treaty of 1783 was declared by an Act of Assembly of this State passed in 1787, to be law in this State, and this State by adopting the Constitution of the United States in 1789, declared the treaty to be the supreme law of the land. The treaty now under consideration was made, on the part of the United States, by a Congress composed of deputies from each state, to whom were delegated by the articles of confederation, expressly, "the sole and exclusive right and power of entering into treaties and alliances"; and being ratified and made by them, it became a complete national act, and the act and law of every state.
If, however, a subsequent sanction of this State was at all necessary to make the treaty law here, it has been had and repeated. By a statute passed in 1787, the treaty was declared to be law in this State, and the courts of law and equity were enjoined to govern their decisions accordingly. And in 1789 was adopted here the present Constitution of the United States, which declared that all treaties made, or which should be made under the authority of the United States, should be the supreme law of the land; and that the judges in every state should be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary not withstanding. Surely, then, the treaty is now law in this State, and the confiscation act, so far as the treaty interferes with it, is annulled."
"By an act of the Legislature of North Carolina, passed in April, 1777, it was, among other things, enacted, "That all persons, being subjects of this State, and now living therein, or who shall hereafter come to live therein, who have traded immediately to Great Britain or Ireland, within ten years last past, in their own right, or acted as factors, storekeepers, or agents here, or in any of the United States of America, for merchants residing in Great Britain or Ireland, shall take an oath of abjuration and allegiance, or depart out of the State."
Treaties are the "Law of the Land" HAMILTON v. EATEN, 1 N.C. 641(1796), HAMILTON v. EATEN. Ä 2 Mart., 1. U.S. Circuit Court. (June Term, 1796.)
Your presence in the State makes you subject to its laws, read the following quote:
"The states are to be considered, with respect to each other, as independent sovereignties, possessing powers completely adequate to their own government, in the exercise of which they are limited only by the nature and objects of government, by their respective constitutions and by that of the United States. Crimes and misdemeanors committed within the limits of each are punishable only by the jurisdiction of that state where they arise; for the right of punishing, being founded upon the consent of the citizens, express or implied, cannot be directed against those who never were citizens, and who likewise committed the offense beyond the territorial limits of the state claiming jurisdiction. Our Legislature may define and punish crimes committed within the State, whether by citizen or strangers; because the former are supposed to have consented to all laws made by the Legislature, and the latter, whether their residence be temporary or permanent, do impliedly agree to yield obedience to all such laws as long as they remain in the State;"
STATE v. KNIGHT, 1 N.C. 143 (1799), 2 S.A. 70
Do you understand now? The treaty, the corporate Charter, the North Carolina Constitution, by proxy of the electorates, created residence in the large "S" State. Not by some further act you made. So how can expatriation from the United States, remove your residence in The "State", which was created by treaty, ratified by our Fore Fathers. As soon as the corporate Charter (treaty) was ratified we returned to subjection to the king of England, through the legal residence created by the treaty. Remember in the quote I gave earlier, by treaty we recanted our declared freedom, and returned to the king his sovereignty and title. In the following quote you will see that the State supreme court sits by being placed by the general assembly:
NC Supreme Court History Supreme Court of North Carolina A Brief History:
"The legal and historical origins of the Supreme Court of North Carolina lie in the State Constitution of 1776, which empowered the General Assembly to appoint; Judges of the Supreme Courts of Law and Equity; and; Judges of Admiralty.....The first meeting of the Court took place on January 1, 1819. The Court began holding two sittings, or ; terms, ; a year, the first beginning on the second Monday in June and the second on the last Monday in December. This schedule endured until the Constitution of 1868 prescribed the first Mondays in January and July for the sittings. Vacancies on the Court were filled temporarily by the Governor, with the assistance and advice of the Council of State, until the end of the next session of the state General Assembly."
From the internet, address can be made available.
Council of State
What is the Council of State, and where did it originate?
III. "The one of which councils, to be called the council of state (and whose office shall chiefly be assisting, with their care, advice, and circumspection, to the said governor) shall be chosen, nominated, placed, and displaced, from time to time, by us the said treasurer, council and company, and our successors: which council of state shall consist, for the present only of these persons, as are here inserted,..."
IV. "The other council, more generally to be called by the governor, once yearly, and no oftener, but for very extraordinary and important occasions, shall consist for the present, of the said council of state, and of two burgesses out of every town, hundred, or other particular plantation, to be respectively chosen by the inhabitants: which council shall be called The General Assembly, wherein (as also in the said council of state) all matters shall be decided, determined, and ordered by the greater part of the voices then present; reserving to the governor always a negative voice. And this general assembly shall have free power, to treat, consult, and conclude, as well of all emergent occasions concerning the public weal of the said colony and every part thereof, as also to make, ordain, and enact such general laws and orders, for the behoof of the said colony, and the good government thereof, as shall, from time to time, appear necessary or requisite;..." An Ordinance and Constitution of the Virginia Company in England. Footnote #4
The job of the 1st Council of State was to make sure the governor followed the king's wishes. The 2nd was the general assembly, the laws they passed had to conform to the king's law.
Read the following quote:
V. Whereas in all other things, we require the said general assembly, as also the said council of state, to imitate and follow the policy of the form of government, laws, customs, and manner of trial, and other administration of justice, used in the realm of England, as near as may be even as ourselves, by his majesty's letters patent, are required.
VI. Provided, that no law or ordinance, made in the said general assembly, shall be or continue in force or validity, unless the same shall be solemnly ratified and confirmed, in a general quarter court of the said company here in England, and so ratified, be returned to them under our seal; it being our intent to afford the like measure also unto the said colony, that after the government of the said colony shall once have been well framed, and settled accordingly, which is to be done by us, as by authority derived from his majesty, and the same shall have been so by us declared, no orders of court afterwards, shall bind the said colony, unless they be ratified in like manner in the general assemblies. In witness whereof we have hereunto set our common seal the 24th of July, 1621. . . .An Ordinance and Constitution of the Virginia Company in England. footnote #4
The Council of State still exists to day, although it has been modified several times. The first major change came in the 1776, North Carolina Constitution, read the below quotes:
16. "That the senate and house of commons, jointly, at their first meeting, after each annual election, shall, by ballot, elect seven persons to be a council of state for one year; who shall advise the governor in the execution of his office; and that four members shall be a quorum; their advice and proceedings shall be entered in a journal, to be kept for that purpose only, and signed by the members present; to any part of which any member present may enter his dissent. And such journal shall be laid before the general assembly when called for by them." footnote #9
19. "The governor, for the time being, shall have power to draw for and apply such sums of money as shall be voted by the general assembly, for the contingencies of government, and be accountable to them for the same. He also may, by and with the advice of the council of state, lay embargoes, or prohibit the exportation of any commodity, for any term not exceeding thirty days, at any one time in the recess of the general assembly; and shall have the power of granting pardons and reprieves, except where the prosecution shall be carried on by the general assembly, or the law shall otherwise direct; in which case, he may, in the recess, grant a reprieve until the next sitting of the general assembly; and he may exercise all the other executive powers of government, limited and restrained, as by this constitution is mentioned, and according to the laws of the State. And, on his death, inability, or absence from the State, the speaker of the senate, for the time being, and in case of his death, inability, or absence from the State, the speaker of the house of commons, shall exercise the powers of government, after such death, or during such absence or inability of the governor, or speaker of the senate, or until a new nomination is made by the general assembly." footnote #9
20. "That, in every case, where any officer, the right of whose appointment is, by this constitution, vested in the general assembly, shall, during their recess, die, or his office by other means become vacant, the governor shall have power, with the advice of the council of State, to fill up such vacancy, by granting a temporary commission, which shall expire at the end of the next session of the general assembly." footnote #9
Also take notice who was not allowed to serve as Council of State:
26. "That no treasurer shall have a seat, either in the senate, house of commons, or council of state, during his continuance in that office, or before he shall have finally settled his accounts with the public, for all the moneys which may be in his hands, at the expiration of his office, belonging to the State, and hath paid the same into the hands of the succeeding treasurer."
27. "That no officer in the regular army or navy, in the service and pay of the United States, of this State or any other State, nor any contractor or agent for supplying such army or navy with clothing or provisions, shall have a seat either in the senate, house of commons, or council of state, or be eligible thereto; and any member of the senate, house of commons, or council of state, being appointed to,and accepting of such office, shall thereby vacate his seat."
28. "That no member of the council of state shall have a seat, either in the senate or house of commons."
30. "That no secretary of this State, attorney-general, or clerk of any court of record, shall have a seat in the senate, house of commons, or council of state." footnote #9
The king continued to rule through the Council of State until several things were in place, his bank, his laws and tradition. The king succeeded by the acceptance of the American people that they were free, along with the whole of our history not being taught in our schools. The next change to the Council of State came at the conquest of this country, I referred to this in part 1, and in A Country Defeated In Victory.
Read this quote from the 1868 North Carolina constitution, Article 3, sec 14:
SEC. 14. "The Secretary of State, Auditor, Treasurer, Superintendent of Public Works, and Superintendent of Public Instruction, shall constitute ex officio, the Council of State, who shall advise the Governor in the execution of his office, and three of whom shall constitute a quorum; their advice and proceedings in this capacity shall be entered in a Journal, to be kept for this purpose exclusively, and signed by the members present, from any part of which any member may enter his dissent; and such journal shall be placed before the General Assembly when called for by either House. The Attorney General shall be, ex offici, the legal adviser of the Executive Department." footnote #10
After the Civil War, the conquest of America, you see those that were allowed to be Council of State, were elected officials. Under the 1776 North Carolina Constitution, it wasunlawful for these elected officials to be Council of State. Why? Because, the king could not trust the common man to obey him, now that they thought they were free. After the Civil War the Council of State was no longer needed to fulfill the public policy of the king, the Council of State still exists today, but in a reduced capacity as far as the king goes. Now he had the 14th Amendment, his lawyers in the government, his bankers in control of the governments money, and above all greed that causes most in office to continue the status quo.
The Federal Reserve, Taxes and Tax Court
What I will show you next will shock you. I made brief mention in part 1, that taxes paid in this country were under treaty to the king of England. How about if I told you that the law that created our taxes and this countries tax court go back in history to William the Conqueror. And to further help you understand the below definitions, exchequer is the British branch of the Federal Reserve.
Exchequer: "The English department of revenue. A very ancient court of record, set up by William the Conqueror, as a part of the aula regia, and intended principally to order the revenues of the crown, and to recover the king's debts and duties. It was called exchequer, "scaccharium," from the checked cloth, resembling a chessboard, which covers the table." Ballentine's Law Dictionary
Exchequer: "That department of the English government which has charge of the collection of the national revenue; the treasury department." Black's Law Dictionary 4th ed.
Exchequer: "In English Law. A department of the government which has the management of the collection of the king's revenue." Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1914 ed.
Court of Exchequer: "56.The court of exchequer is inferior in rank not only to the court of king's bench, but to the common pleas also: but I have chosen to consider it in this order, on account of its double capacity, as a court of law and a court of equity  also. It is a very ancient court of record, set up by William the Conqueror, as a part of the aula regia, through regulated and reduced to its present order by King Edward I; and intended principally to order the revenues of the crown, and to recover the king's debts and duties. It is called the exchequer, scaccharium, from the chequed cloth, resembling a chess-board, which covers the table there; and on which, when certain of the king's accounts are made up, the sums are marked and scored with counters. It consists of two divisions; the receipt of the exchequer, which manages to royal revenue, and with which these Commentaries have no concern; and the court or judicial part of it, which is again subdivided into a court of equity, and a court of common law."
Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1554
Court of Exchequer: "An English superior court with jurisdiction of matter of law and matters involving government revenue." Ballentine's Law Dictionary
Court of Exchequer: "A court for the correction and prevention of errors of law in the three superior common-law courts of the kingdom.
A court of exchequer chamber was first erected by statute 31 Edw. III. C. 12, to determine causes upon writs of error from the common-law side of the exchequer court. It consisted of the chancellor, treasurer, and the "justices and other sage persons as to them seemeth." The judges were merely assistants. A second court of exchequer chamber was instituted by statute 27 Eliz. C. 8, consisting of the justices of the common pleas and the exchequer, or any six of them, which had jurisdiction in error of cases in the king's bench. In exchequer chamber substituted in their place as an intermediate court of appeal between the three common-law courts and Parliament. It consisted of the judges of the two courts which had not rendered the judgement in the court below. It is now merged in the High Court of Justice."
Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1914 ed.
It gets worse, are you just a little ticked off, or maybe you are starting to question what you have been taught all these years? It's time to wake up America!
If you'll look at the Judiciary Act of 1789 (I know most won't take time to read it), you'll see that all district courts are admiralty courts. This is the king's court of commerce, in which he is the plaintiff, recovering damages done against him, or what belongs to him.
The equity court of the exchequer: "57. The court of equity is held in the exchequer chamber before the lord treasurer, the chancellor of the exchequer, the chief baron, and three puisne' ones. These Mr. Selden conjectures to have been anciently made out of such as were barons of the kingdom, or parliamentary barons; and thence to have derived their name: which conjecture receives great strength form Bracton's explanation of magna carta, c.14, which directs that the earls and barons be amerced by their peers; that is, says he, by the barons of the exchequer. The primary and original business of this court is to call the king's debtors to account, by bill filed by the attorney general; and to recover any lands, tenements, or hereitaments, any goods, chattels, or other profits or benefits, belonging to the crown. So that by their original constitution the jurisdiction of the courts of common pleas, king's bench, and exchequer, was entirely separate and distinct; the common pleas being intended to decide all controversies between subject and subject; the king's bench to correct all crimes and misdemeanors that amount to a breach of the peace, the king being then the plaintiff, as such offenses are in open derogation of the jura regalia (regal rights) of his crown; and the exchequer to adjust  and recover his revenue, wherein the king also is plaintiff, as the withholding and nonpayment thereof is an injury to his jura fiscalia (fisical rights). But, as by a fiction almost all sorts of civil actions are now allowed to be brought in the king's bench, in like manner by another fiction all kinds of personal suits may be prosecuted in the court of exchequer. For as all the officers and ministers of this court have, like those of other superior courts, the privilege of suing and being sued only in their own court; so exchequer, are privileged to sue and implead all manner of persons in the same court of equity that they themselves are called into. They have likewise privilege to sue and implead one another, or any stranger, in the same kind of common-law actions (where the personalty only is concerned) as are prosecuted in the court of common pleas."
Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1554
The common-law court of the exchequer: "58. This gives original to the common-law part of their jurisdiction, which was established merely for the benefit of the king's accountants, and is exercised by the barons only of the exchequer, and not the treasurer or chancellor. The writ upon which the plaintiff suggests that he is the king's farmer or debtor, and that the defendant hath done him the injury or damage complained of; quo minus sufficient exist, by which he is the less able, to pay the king his debt or rent. And these suits are expressly directed, by what is called the statute of Rutland, to be confined to such matters only as specially concern the king or his ministers of the exchequer. And by the articuli super cartas it is enacted that no common pleas be thenceforth holden in the exchequer, contrary to the form of the great charter. But not, by the suggestion of privilege, any person may be admitted to sue in the exchequer as well as the king's accountant. The surmise of being debtor to the king is therefore become matter of form and mere words of course, and the court is open to allthe nation equally. The same holds with regard to the equity side of the court: for there any person may file  a bill against another upon a bare suggestion that he is the king's accountant; but whether he is so or not is never controverted. In this court, on the nonpayment of titles; in which case the surmise of being the king's debtor is no fiction, they being bound to pay him their first-fruits, and annual tenths. But the chancery has of late years obtained a large share in this business."
Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1555
Definition of a legal fiction: For a discussion of fictions in law, see chapter II of Maine's Ancient Law, and Pollock's note D in his edition of the Ancient Law. Blackstone gives illustrations of legal fictions on pages 43, 45, 153, 203 of this book. Mr Justice Curtis (Jurisdiction of United States Courts, 2d ed., 148) gives the following instance of a fiction in our practice:
"A suit by or against a corporation in its corporate name may be presumed to be a suit by or against citizens of the state which created the corporate body, and no averment or denial to the contrary is admissible for the purpose of withdrawing the suit from the jurisdiction of a court of the United States.
There is the Roman fiction: The court first decides the law, presumes all the members are citizens of the state which created the corporation, and then says, `you shall not traverse that presumption'; and that is the law now. (Authors note-by your residence you are incorporated) Under it, the courts of the United States constantly entertain suits by or against corporations. (Muller v. Dows, 94 U. S. 444, 24 L. Ed. 207.) It has been so frequently settled, that there is not the slightest reason to suppose that it will ever be departed from by the court. It has been repeated over and over again in subsequent decisions; and the supreme court seem entirely satisfied that it is the right ground to stand upon; and, as I am now going to state to you, they have applied it in some cases which go beyond, much beyond, these decisions to which I have referred.
So that when a suit is to be brought in a court of the United States by or against a corporation, by reason of the character of the parties, you have only to say that this corporation (after naming it correctly) was created by a law of the state; and that is exactly the same in its consequences as if you could allege, and did allege, that the corporation was a citizen of that state. According to the present decisions, it is not necessary you should say that the members of that corporation are citizens of Massachusetts. They have passed beyond that. You have only to say that the corporation was created by a law of the state of Massachusetts, and has its principal place of business in that state; and that makes it, for the purposes of jurisdiction, the same as if it were a citizen of that state" See Pound, Readings in Roman Law, 95n. Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1553
Combine this with what I said earlier concerning power of the treaty and it's creation of the corporate State, and you now know why you are not allowed to challenge residence or subjection in the State Courts. And because of the treaty, residence in the State is synonymous with residence in the district. I know this puts a sour taste in your mouth, because it does mine, but that is the condition we find ourselves in. The only way I see to change it, is to change the treaty and reinforce the original Declaration of Independence, but this would meet severe objection on the part of the international Bankers, and or course the king's heirs in England. And most Americans, even if they were aware of this information, would have no stomach for the turmoil this would cause.
Still a little fuzzy on what has taken place, the word Exchequer is still used today? In Britain the Exchequer is the Federal Reserve, the same as our Federal Reserve. They just changed the name here as they have done many things to cloud what is taking place, hoping no one would catch on. Who wrote the Federal Reserve Act, and put it in place in this country? Bankers from the Bank of England with their counter part in New York!
Congressman McFadden: "I hope that is the case, but I may say to the gentleman that during the sessions of this Economic Conference in London there is another meeting taking place in London. We were advised by reports from London last Sunday of the arrival of George L.Harrison, Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and we were advised that accompanying him was Mr. Crane, the Deputy Governor, and James P. Warburg, of the Kuhn-Loeb banking family, of New York and Hamburg, Germany, and also Mr. O. M. W. Sprague, recently in the pay of Great Britain as chief economic and financial adviser of Mr. Norman, Governor of the Bank Of England, and now supposed to represent our Treasury. These men landed in England and rushed to the Bank of England for a private conference, taking their luggage with them, before even going to their hotel. We know this conference has been taking place for the past 3 days behind closed doors in the Bank of England with these gentlemen meeting with heads of the Bank of England and the Bank for International Settlements, of Basel, Switzerland, and the head of the Bank France, Mr. Maret. They are discussing war debts; they are discussing stabilization of exchanges and the Federal Reserve System,I may say to the Members of the House.
The Federal reserve System, headed by George L. Harrison, is our premier, who is dealing with debts behind the closed doors of the Bank of England; and the United States Treasury is there, represented by O. M. W. Sprague, who until the last 10 days was the representative of the Bank of England, and by Mr. James P. Warburg, who is the son of the principal author of the Federal Reserve Act. Many things are being settled behind the closed doors of the Bank of England by this group. No doubt this group were pleased to hear that yesterday the Congress passed amendments to the Federal Reserve Act and that the President signed the bill which turns over to the Federal Reserve System the complete total financial resources of money and credit in the United States. Apparently the domination and control of the international banking group is being trengthened.... Congressional Record, June 14, 1934
What else does the Exchequer do? The government(Congress) puts up bonds (bills of credit) on the international market, that the Federal Reserve (Exchequer) prints fiat money, for which the government (Congress) is the guarantor for, read the following quote:
Exchequer Bills: Bills of credit issued by authority of parliament.
They constitute the medium of transaction of business between the bank of England and the government. The exchequer bills contain a guarantee from government which secures the holders against loss by fluctuation. Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1914 ed.
Also re-read "A Country Defeated In Victory". Who do you think the national debt is owed to? If that's not bad enough the bond indebtedness allowed the king to foreclose on his colony when it was time for the one World government, the king/bankers caused us to reorganize under bankruptcy. The Bank of England allowed the United States to use you and I (our labor)for collateral and all the property in America, read the following quote:
Congressman Lemke: "....This nation is bankrupt; every State in this Union is bankrupt; the people of the United States, as a whole, are bankrupt. The public and private debts of this Nation, which are evidenced by bonds, mortgages, notes, or other written instruments about to about $250,000,000,000, and it is estimated that there is about $50,000,000,000 of which there is no record, making in all about $300,000,000,000 of public and private debts. The total physical cash value of all the property in the United States is now estimated at about $70,000,000,000. That is more than it would bring if sold at public auction. In this we do not include debts or the evidence of debts, such as bonds, mortgages, and so fourth. These are not physical property. They will have to be paid out of the physical property. How are we going to pay $300,000,000,000 with only $70,000,000,000?" Congressional Record, March 3, 1934, footnote #10
This debt was more than could be paid as of 1934, this caused the declared bankruptcy by President Roosevelt. Now the national debt is over 12,000,000,000,000. The government only tells you about 5,000,000,000,000, they don't tell you about the corporate debt, which America is also guarantor for. Add to that the personal debt; you know credit cards and home loans, and it approaches 20,000,000,000,000, that's trillion for those of you that miss read the number of zero's. Mix this with a super inflated stock market and a huge trade deficit, and that is what brings you to understand my subtitle for this paper. BEND OVER AMERICA. What could possibly be the purpose of the international bankers allowing our nation to over extend so badly and not cut us off? When back in 1934 they could have legally seized the whole country. We are being used for the purpose of the international bankers which is loaning money to third world countries, to enslave them as we are, to colonize the world for Britain, and to use our military machine to control unruly countries and to collect the king's debt. There will soon be a United Nations personal income tax for the whole world. The end purpose of the international bankers, is a one world government, with England as the center of government and the international bankers calling the shots.
I am going to share a dream I had, July 1992, at the risk of being ridiculed. I told my friend who is mentioned in the dream, the next day. At that time neither of us understood the dream, about a month later I started to understand when I began learning about admiralty law and where our admiralty law came from. As time has passed I have come to understand the dream, because of further information coming to light, such as the information contained in part 1, and part 2, which you are now reading. I new when I woke up that the dream was not the normal nonsense you can sometimes experience in a dream. And I might add I dream very seldom, after having this dream I was given the desire to write down and pass along the information that has been brought my way, via. the Holy Spirit. The information has defined the dream not the other way around.
July 1992: A record of a dream I had. I was what appeared to be hovering above the below scene, and it appeared to be three dimensional, like the scene had texture. It was also in color, with the smell of war in the air. I awoke at 5:00 am, and was wide awake and immediately wrote down what took place in my dream.
A friend and I were among thousands of Christians that were massed together awaiting execution. I saw untold thousands of Christians executed before us. There were many troops guarding us, these troops were British; they had on Revolutionary War clothing and were carrying the old style muskets.
The people that went before us to be executed went voluntarily. They went out of some false sense of duty to this envisioned government, that was British controlled. These people were in ranks waiting to be lead away to their death. While standing in the ranks my friend and I kept looking at one another, but we were separated by what seemed to be hundreds of people.
Just before they called our number they lead us away (untold thousands) under guard to return later. I asked some of the people in the ranks to step aside so I could get next to my friend. I told him that while I was in the ranks awaiting death, the Holy Spirit told me not to listen to their reasons for death, but to consider His reasons (Holy Spirit's) for the sanctity of life and that we were to do whatever it took to stay alive and defeat the beast. I saw myself tapping my friend on the head, and told him this was an example of how the Holy Spirit related to me, that He wanted our attention.
The Holy Spirit said we were to go and do the Holy Spirit's bidding no matter where it lead us and that we would be protected. We both looked at each other and decided we could not die voluntarily as the other Christians. We looked at each other and said this is crazy, my friend said this is voluntary just like being a Fourteenth Amendment citizen. We then walked out of the ranks right in front of the British guards, unseen and escaped.
Keep in mind you cannot control your dreams. Does God Almighty still communicate through dreams as he did with George Washington? The Bible makes it clear He does. Whether this dream is a product of uncontrolled imagination while asleep, or insight from the Holy Spirit, I will only say, let history decide. I am satisfied of the dreams origin, because of its fulfillment through recent knowledge, that wasn't known at that time. I hope you will read the rest of the documentation in the footnotes following this commentary.
Footnote #1 - Chronology of North Carolina Governors and Original Virginia Colony, page 15
Footnote #2 - Virginia Charter, 1609, page 18
Footnote #3 - Virginia Charter, 1621, page 27
Footnote #4 - Charter creating the Council of State,1621, page 29
Footnote #5 - Carolina Charter, 1663, page 31
Footnote #6 - Carolina Charter granting Proprietorship to eight lords, 1669, page 42
Footnote #7 - Florida Charter, 1763, page 65
Footnote #8 - Hudson Bay Charter, 1670, page 69
Footnote #9 - North Carolina Constitution,1776, page 80
Footnote #10 - North Carolina Constitution, 1789, and latter amendments, page 88
Footnote #11 - Congressional Record, page 127
| Part 3 |=======================================
THE UNITED STATES IS STILL A BRITISH COLONY
Will the real government please stand up!
After writing British Colony parts 1 and 2, I was amazed how some people react, when confronted with information that goes against their prior programming. It is as if to even consider the possibility that their belief system may be incorrect, was a threat to their mental well being. They were going to deny any truth that threatens their belief structure. The good news is those with such a reaction were of the minority. This is promising, because it shows Americans can still think past years of incomplete teaching, concerning our history. Those in the negative believe the information had to be bogus and they could not believe the government could wrong them.
So this third part is for them, to show them that government has and does lie to them and violates their trust on major issues. As always this information and supporting documents, are given so the reader can form their own opinion. Other writers, I will mention one since he uses a pen name, the Informer, has also done extensive research on this subject and has been forced to come to the same conclusions. (Check out the latest work of the Informer, his new book called, THE NEW HISTORY OF AMERICA.)
The information the Informer and I have found is so clear and undeniable, even the doubting thomas' will have to face reality. Not to make us right, but for America to become aware of lost history, that neither of us formed, but are willing to be criticized in its reporting to correct great error.
Guide to the Footnotes: External Links
1. Quotes on the fraudulent ramification of the 14th. Amendment.
2. Tulane Law Review vol. 28 1953, The Dubious Origin Of The
Fourteenth Amendment, by Walter J. Suthon, Jr.
3. Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867.
4. Reconstruction Act of March 11, 1868.
5. Reconstruction Act of March 23, 1867.
6. Reconstruction Act of July 19, 1867.
7. President Lincoln's Proclamation of Amnesty & Reconstruction.
8. Veto message by President Johnson, March 2, 1867.
9. Gen. Orders No. 100 by President Lincoln, April 24 1863.
10.Court cases on Conquest and Military Occupation.
11.Letter I wrote to a local sheriff, August 27, 1995.
12.New Jersey's removal of their ratification of the 14th Amendment.
I will begin with the touch stone of the patriot community, the Fourteenth Amendment. Everyone knows about the citizenship issue. I raised another issue concerning the 4th section of the Fourteenth Amendment in British Colony part 1, and issues regarding sec. 3, in court documents found in Footnote 13. Doubting thomas' think this is a conspiracy theory.In the new propaganda movie called "Conspiracy Theory", the establishment wants you to think that anyone that believes there is someone behind the scenes calling the shots is mentally unbalanced. What the doubting thomas' do not realize, is this is a big puzzle and is hard to recognize, and can be incorrectly viewed. The biggest problem is, it can be put together more than one way, totally changing its appearance and outcome. The doubting thomas' may say how is it you think you have the correct pieces? My answer is, I shoot a lot of archery, in archery you shoot for the bullseye, not the less important areas outside the bullseye. You have to stay focused on what are the core issues, not the side issues/collateral issues, where valuable time is lost. I conduct my research in this way. Two, I rely on God Almighty to keep me pointed in the right direction. Three, I always tell you not to take my word without checking the subject out for yourself. Most people if plagued with a recurring headache, take a pain reliever, and the headache appears to go away. When in fact all you have done is deal with a symptom, that caused the headache. You have not dealt with the cause. Many patriots today are dealing with the symptoms, like taxes, driving v. traveling and the zipcode, etc. etc. All are important issues and have their place, but they are not the root cause of our problem. Until the cause of the affliction is researched, exposed and then removed, nothing will change.
The lawful de jure united States government which was created by the 1787 Constitution/Treaty, between the States, was made null and void by the fraudulent Congress, that passed the Fourteenth Amendment. This is a bold and broad statement, but I will prove it.
"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guarantees of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States." Dyett v. Turner 439 p2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403
"Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest of subjugation." Dyett v. Turner 439 p2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403
The Southern States could not lawfully cede from the Union without the other States being in agreement. In the last sentence you will notice the war was either a rebellion or, the States were made foreign and conquest and military rule took place during the Civil War. This is very important, because of what took place next, and what took place after the Civil War and March 9, 1933. March 2, 1867, President Johnson declared the rebellion to be over and the Southern States to be once again part of the Union, before the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment were passed. So the States were not foreign, they did not have to be readmitted, they picked up in Congress where they left off, with the same State governments they had before the rebellion. If the Southern States had ceded from the Union, without sanction by all the States, their Legislative Acts would have been null and void. In other words if a State or the federal government violates their corporate Charter, it makes any subsequent law void, unenforceable, other than by force of arms.
The following information should upset you greatly and at the same time amaze you, that Americans are totally unaware of this information. How is it in the freest country in the world, and a nation that prides itself on our history, could you have 200 plus million people ignorant of the truth, and that care so little about the destruction of our country? The information I am sharing with you is purposely not taught in the public schools. Why? It will become clear to you that, if the government taught this in the public schools, it would cause the rebirth of American patriotism. Americans would demand our former overthrown Republican form of government; and that the Laws of God Almighty be adhered to. We were promised in the Constitution a Republican form of government, and Benjamin Franklin when asked, said: you have been given a Republican form of government if you can keep it,(paraphrase). By the laziness and greed of the American people over the years our lawful government was stolen, but not without our help.
The Civil War was fought to free the slaves and reunite the Union, or so we have been told by selected history, taught by and through the government. The slaves just changed masters, as I have said before in other research papers, and the white people enfranchised, incorporated, and sold themselves into slavery. Whites along with blacks were made legal fictions so they could be owned and taxed by the king. However, the only way this could be done is by destroying the Constitution, but they had to do it in a way that no one would recognize its destruction, or care thanks to the offered benefits. Now the Proof.
December 8, 1863 President Lincoln declared by proclamation, amnesty and reconstruction for the southerners so they could be readmitted into the Union. Footnote #7 This action along with what Lincoln was doing with the money is why Lincoln had to be killed. The South could not be allowed back into the Union without their enfranchisement. Compare the readmittance oath in President Lincoln's proclamation of 1863, to the following oath requirement required by Congress, under the Reconstruction Acts, Footnotes #3,4,5 and 6.
"An Act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel States, passed March second, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, shall cause a registration to be made of the male citizens of the United States, twenty-one years of age and upwards, resident in each county or parish in the State or States included in his district, which registration shall include only those persons who are qualified to vote for delegates by the act aforesaid, and who shall have taken and subscribed the following oath or affirmation: "I, _____, do solemnly swear, (or affirm,) in the presence of Almighty God, that I am a citizen of the State of _____; that I have resided in said State for _____ months next preceding this day, and now reside in the county of _____, or the parish of _____, in said State, (as the case may be;) that I am twenty-one years old; that I have not been disfranchised for participation in any rebellion or civil war against the United States, nor for felony committed against the laws of any State or of the United States; that I have never been a member of any State legislature, nor held any executive or judicial office in any State and afterwards engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof; that I have never taken an oath as a member of Congress of the United States, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, and afterwards engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof; that I will faithfully support the Constitution and obey the laws of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, encourage others so to do, so help me God;" which oath or affirmation may be administered by any registering officer." Reconstruction Act of March 23, 1867, supplement to Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867.
You will note that in the above oath Congress creates legal residence for anyone taking the oath and that this is done by registering to vote, and made a requirement in order to vote. The same legal disability still takes place today when you register to vote. Today you still have voting districts in every county in the America.
You will also notice that, the oath makes you declare that you were not disenfranchised, by taking part in the Civil War. Which means that, before the Civil War Americans were franchised citizens, incorporated. I covered this in part 1; by the States adoption of the Constitution, those that lived in the States became legal residents, incorporated/enfranchised, instead of Sui Juris freemen. Which was granted to them by the Declaration of Independence, and in North Carolina, for North Carolinians this was reaffirmed by the 1776 North Carolina Constitution, see British Colony part 2.
Also, you will see in the following oaths where the language came from, for the creation of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, this language was also used in the 14th Amendment oath you just read. Wherein it declares that, elected officials, judges, legislators and police etc., cannot give aid and comfort to the enemy. The enemy is anyone unincorporated, because the king cannot legally tax you, without using the force of admiralty. The enemy is also anyone that refuses to swear the oath to the de facto government for the above reasons.
The following is the oath given to those that wanted to serve in the United States government.
An act to prescribe an oath of office. July 2, 1862
"Be it enacted, That hereafter every person elected or appointed to any office of honor or profit under the Government of the United States either in the civil, military, or naval departments of the public service, excepting the President of the United States, shall, before entering upon the duties of such office, and before being entitled to any of the salary or other emoluments thereof, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: "I, A B, do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I have never voluntarily borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have never sought nor accepted nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever, under any authority or pretended authority, in hostility to the United States; that I have not yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power, or constitution within the United States, hostile or inimical thereto; and I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter; so help me God;" which said oath, so taken and signed, shall be preserved among the files of the Court, House of Congress, or Department to which the said office may appertain. And any person who shall falsely take the said oath shall be guilty of perjury, and on conviction, in addition to the penalties now prescribed for that offense, shall be deprived of his office, and rendered incapable forever after, of holding any office or place under the United States."
When the war was over President Johnson declared the States readmitted to the Union and hostilities to be over.
Furthermore; on April 2, 1866, President Andrew Johnson issued a "Proclamation" that:
"The insurrection which heretofore existed in the States of Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi and Florida is at an end, and is henceforth to be so regarded."
Presidential Proclamation No. 153,
General Records of the United States,
G.S.A. National Archives and Records Service.
On August 20, 1866 (14 Stat. 814); the President proclaimed that the insurrection in the State of Texas had been completely ended and his "Proclamation"continued:
"The insurrection which heretofore existed in the State of Texas is at an end, and is to be henceforth so regarded in that State, as in the other States before named in which the said insurrection was proclaimed to be at an end by the aforesaid proclamation of the second day of April, one thousand, eight hundred and sixty-six.
"And I do further proclaim that the said insurrection is at an end, and that peace, order, tranquility, and civil authority now exist, in and throughout the whole of the united States of America."
Again the power behind the United States government would not stand for this, so Congress passed the Reconstruction Acts, Footnotes #3,4,5 and 6. President Johnson vetoed the Acts because they were unconstitutional. Below are some excerpts from his veto message.
"It is plain that the authority here given to the military officer amounts to absolute despotism. But to make it still more unendurable, the bill provides that it may be delegated to as many subordinates as he chooses to appoint, for it declares that he shall 'punish or cause to be punished'. Such a power has not been wielded by any Monarch in England for more than five hundred years. In all that time no people who speak the English language have borne such servitude. It reduces the whole population of the ten States- all persons, of every color, sex and condition, and every stranger within their limits- to the most abject and degrading slavery. No master ever had a control so absolute over the slaves as this bill gives to the military officers over both white and colored persons...."
"I come now to a question which is, if possible, still more important. Have we the power to establish and carry into execution a measure like this? I answer, 'Certainly not', if we derive our authority from the Constitution and if we are bound by the limitations which is imposes."....
"...The Constitution also forbids the arrest of the citizen without judicial warrant, founded on probable cause. This bill authorizes an arrest without warrant, at pleasure of a military commander. The Constitution declares that 'no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on presentment of a grand jury'. This bill holds ever person not a soldier answerable for all crimes and all charges without any presentment. The Constitution declares that 'no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law'. This bill sets aside all process of law, and makes the citizen answerable in his person and property to the will of one man, and as to his life to the will of two. Finally, the Constitution declares that 'the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when, in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it'; whereas this bill declares martial law (which of itself suspends this great writ) in time of peace, and authorizes the military to make the arrest, and gives to the prisoner only one privilege, and that is trial 'without unnecessary delay'. He has no hope of release from custody, except the hope, such as it is, of release by acquittal before a military commission."
"The United States are bound to guarantee to each State a republican form of government. Can it be pretended that this obligation is not palpably broken if we carry out a measure like this, which wipes away every vestige of republican government in ten States and puts the life, property, and honor of all people in each of them under domination of a single person clothed with unlimited authority?"
"....,here is a bill of attainder against 9,000,000 people at once. It is based upon an accusation so vague as to be scarcely intelligible and found to be true upon no credible evidence. Not one of the 9,000,000 was heard in his own defense. The representatives of the doomed parties were excluded from all participation in the trial. The conviction is to be followed by the most ignominious punishment ever inflicted on large messes of men. It disfranchises them by hundreds of thousands and degrades them all, even those who are admitted to be guiltless, from the rank of freeman to the condition of slaves." Veto Message of President Johnson, March 2, 1867, Footnote #8
President Johnson did not realize the king ruled and that in 1845 Congress declared admiralty law to have come on land, nor did he realize the relevance of the Insular Cases. I cover these in "A Country Defeated In Victory" part 1 and in Footnote 11. Once the judiciary decided to look the other way, the De jure Constitution's days were numbered.
"As a result of these decisions, enforcement of the Reconstruction Act against the Southern States, helpless to resist military rule without aid of the judiciary, went forward unhampered. Puppet governments were founded in these various States under military auspices. Through these means the adoption of new state constitutions, conforming to the requirements of Congress, was accomplished. Likewise, one by one, these puppet state governments ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, which their more independent predecessors had rejected. Finally, in July 1868, the ratifications of this amendment by the puppet governments of seven of the ten Southern States, including Louisiana, gave more than the required ratification by three-fourths of the States, and resulted in a Joint Resolution adopted by Congress and a Proclamation by the Secretary of State, both declaring the Amendment ratified and in force." Tulane Law Review, The Dubious Origin Of The Fourteenth Amendment. page 36
To regress just a moment, after the war, after the States rejoined the Union, the representatives of the South took their seats in Congress. Later the Thirteenth Amendment was passed in Congress by the Northern States and the Southern States. By the 1787 Constitution they were considered equal contracting partners of the Union. The powers controlling the government had to replace their republican form of government that had existed in the Southern States since they adopted the 1787 Constitution.
"Despite the fact that the southern States had been functioning peacefully for two years and had been counted to secure ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment , Congress passed the Reconstruction Act, which provided for the military occupation of 10 of the 11 southern States. It excluded Tennessee =66rom military occupation and one must suspect it was because Tennessee had ratified the Fourteenth Amendment on July 7, 1866. The Act further disfranchised practically all white voters and provided that no Senator or Congressman from the occupied States could be seated in Congress until a new Constitution was adopted by each State which would be approved by Congress. The Act further provided that each of the 10 States was required to ratify the proposed Fourteenth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment must become a part of the Constitution of the United States before the military occupancy would cease and the States be allowed to have seats in Congress." Dyett v. Turner 439 p2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403
The way they chose to do it was pass the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the Northern States that put the amendment up in Congress figured the Southern States would ratify. Wrong, the amendment fell short of passing the House and the Senate. The action taken next by the Northern States will go down in history as the most unlawful act ever taken by any government in the world. Since the amendment would not pass lawfully, the Northern States decided to rip the 1787 Constitution up and take over the government. How did they do this? They told the Southern States that refused to vote for the amendment they no longer were members of Congress, denying lawful States suffrage in the Union. In order to get the amendment through Congress the Northern Senators also removed a seated Senator from New Jersey to give them two-thirds in the Senate, and counted 30 abstention votes in the House as yes votes to pass the Fourteenth Amendment in the House. See Footnote #12
Observing how 'a renegade group of men from the Northern States', MY NOTE in quotes, actual text in brackets (Congress) had taken the Constitution into its own hands and was proceeding in willful disregard of the Constitution, on the 15th of January, 1868- Ohio, and then on March 24, 1868- New Jersey, voted to withdraw their prior ratifications and to reject.
The following, is an excerpt from Joint Resolution No.1 of the State of New Jersey of March 24, 1868, when they rescinded their prior ratification and rejected:
"It being necessary, by the Constitution, that every amendment to the same, should be proposed by two thirds of both Houses of Congress, the authors of said proposition, for the purpose of securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to, and did, exclude from the said two Houses eighty representatives form eleven States of the Union, upon the pretence that there were no such States in the Union; but, finding that two-thirds of the remainder of said Houses could not be brought to assent to the said proposition, they deliberately formed and carried out the design of mutilating the integrity of the United States Senate, and without any pretext or justification, other than the possession of power, without the right and in palpable violation of the Constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing this State, and thus practically denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage in the Senate and thereby nominally secured the vote of two-thirds of the said Houses."
"The object of dismembering the highest representative assembly in the Nation, and humiliating a State of the Union, faithful at all times to all of its obligations, and the object of said amendment were one- to place new and unheard of powers in the hands of a faction, that it might absorb to itself all executive, judicial and legislative power, necessary to secure to itself immunity for the unconstitutional acts it had already committed, and those it has since inflicted on a too patient people."
"The subsequent usurpation of these once national assemblies, in passing pretended laws for the establishment, in ten States, of martial law, which is nothing but the will of the military commander, and therefore inconsistent with the very nature of all law, for the purpose reducing to slavery men of their own race to those States, or compelling them, contrary to their own convictions, to exercise the elective franchise in obedience to dictation of a fraction in those assemblies; the attempt to commit to one man arbitrary and uncontrolled power, which they have found necessary to exercise to force the people of those States into compliance with their will; the authority given to the Secretary of War to use the name of the President, to countermand its President's order, and to certify military orders to be by the direction of the President' when they are notoriously known to be contrary to the President's direction, thus keeping up the forms of the Constitution to which the people are accustomed, but practically deposing the President from his office of Commander-in-Chief, and suppressing one of the great departments of the Government, that of the executive; the attempt to withdraw from the supreme judicial tribunal of the Nation the jurisdiction to examine and decide upon the conformity of their pretended laws to the Constitution, which was the Chief function of that August tribunal, as organized by the fathers of the republic: all are but amplified explanations of the power they hope to acquire by the adoption of the said amendment."
"To conceal from the people the immense alteration of the fundamental law they intended to accomplish by the said amendment, they gilded the same with propositions of justice..."
"It imposes new prohibitions upon the power of the State to pass laws, and interdicts the execution of such part of the common law as the national judiciary may esteem inconsistent with the vague provisions of the said amendment; made vague for the purpose of facilitating encroachment upon the lives, liberties and property of the people."
"It enlarges the judicial power of the United States so as to bring every law passed by the State, and every principle of the common law relating to life, liberty, or property, within the jurisdiction of the Federal tribunals, and charges those tribunals with duties, to the due performance of which they, from their nature and organization, and their distance from the people, are unequal."
"It makes a new apportionment of representatives in the National courts, for no other reason than thereby to secure to a faction a sufficient number of votes of a servile and ignorant race to outweigh the intelligent voices of their own."
"This Legislature, feeling conscious of the support of the largest majority of the people that has ever been given expression to the public will, declare that the said proposed amendment being designed to confer, or to compel the States to confer, the sovereign right of elective franchise upon a race which has never given the slightest evidence, at any time, or in any quarter of the globe, of its capacity of self-government, and erect an impracticable standard of suffrage, which will render the right valueless to any portion of the people was intended to overthrow the system of self-government under which the people of the United States have for eighty years enjoyed their liberties, and is unfit, from its origin, its object and its matter, to be incorporated with the fundamental law of a free people."
(The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the threat that it poses to our democratic government, Pinckney G. McElwee, South Carolina Law Quarterly 1959)
Did the political outrage of all history stop there? No!
In order to ratify the amendment in the States, Congress declared war on the Southern States by passing the Reconstruction Acts. Declaring the Southern States had unlawful State governments. They placed the States under martial law, creating military districts which still exist today. Is not the Fourteenth Amendment still in existence today? Nothing has changed. They replaced the lawful State governments with puppet governments, so the Fourteenth Amendment would be ratified by the required 3/4 of the States and would not readmit any State until ratification of the amendment was complete. The illusion is since you vote for your officials, "we can't be under military occupation". The privilege to vote would end if your State tried to remove the Fourteenth Amendment.
Back to President Johnson's veto, the unlawful Congress then over road his veto. Now picture this, you have a lawful President who vetoed the unconstitutional Reconstruction Acts, passed by a de facto Congress. Then the unlawful Congress overrides his veto since they have a Republican majority in the Congress after denying the representation to the Democratic Southern States. This Congress under the 1787 Constitution had no lawful authority to conduct business under the 1787 Charter much less destroy the office of the President. What do you call this? It was a political take over, a coup d'etat.
The Fourteenth Amendment was proposed by Congress to the States for adoption, through the enactment by Congress of Public Resolution No. 48, adopted by the Senate on June 8, 1866 and by the House of Representatives on June 13, 1866. That Congress deliberately submitted this amendment proposal to the then existing legislatures of the several States is shown by the initial paragraph of the resolution." Tulane Law Review, The Dubious Origin Of The Fourteenth Amendment. page 28
1. Texas rejected the 14th Amendment on October 27, 1866
(House Journal 1866, pp. 578-584 - Senate Journal 1866, p.471.).
2. Georgia rejected the 14th Amendment on November 9, 1866
(House Journal 1866, p 68 - Senate Journal 1866, p. 8.).
3. Florida rejected the 14th Amendment on December 6, 1866
(House Journal 1866, p 76 - Senate Journal 1866, p. 8.).
4. Alabama rejected the 14th Amendment on December 7, 1866
(House Journal 1866. p. 210-213 - Senate Journal 1866, p.183.).
5. North Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on December 14, 1866
(House Journal 1866 - 1867. p. 183 - Senate Journal 1866-67, p. 138.).
6. Arkansas rejected the 14th Amendment on December 17, 1866
(House Journal 1866, pp. 288-291 - Senate Journal 1866, p. 262.).
7. South Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on December 20, 1866
(House Journal 1866, p. 284 - Senate Journal 1866, p. 230.).
8. Kentucky rejected the 14th Amendment on January 8, 1867
(House Journal 1867, p. 60 - Senate Journal 1867, p. 62.).
9. Virginia rejected the 14th Amendment on January 9, 1867
(House Journal 1866-67, p. 108 - Senate Journal 1866-67, p. 101.).
10. Louisiana rejected the 14th Amendment on February 9, 1867
("Joint Resolution" as recorded on page 9 of the "Acts of the General Assembly," Second Session, January 28, 1867) (McPherson, "Reconstruction," p. 194; "Annual Encyclopedia," p. 452.).
11. Delaware rejected the 14th Amendment on February 7, 1867
(House Journal 1867, p. 223 - Senate Journal 1867, p. 808.).
12. Maryland rejected the 14th Amendment on March 23, 1867
(House Journal 1867, p. 1141 - Senate Journal 1867, p. 808.).
13. Mississippi rejected the 14th Amendment on January 31, 1867
(McPherson, "Reconstruction," p. 194.).
14. Ohio rejected the 14th Amendment on January 15, 1868
(House Journal 1868, pp. 44-50 - Senate Journal 1868, pp. 33-38.).
15. New Jersey rejected the 14th Amendment on March 24, 1868
("Minutes of the Assembly" 1868, p. 743 - Senate Journal 1868, p. 356.).
16. California rejected the 14th Amendment on March 3rd, 1868
("Journal of the Assembly" 1867-8, p. 601).
17. Oregon rejected the 14th Amendment by the Senate on October 6, 1868 and by the House on October 15, 1868 proclaiming the Legislature that ratified the Amendment to have been a "defacto" Legislature (U.S. House of Representatives, 40th Congress, 3rd session, Mis. Doc. No 12).
Did the military occupation ever come to an end? No!
Did the military presence leave the streets? Yes. Technically do you have to have a military presence visible in the streets, for military occupation and martial law to exist? No! Can the military/Commander-in-Chief/Congress, transfer this power to the civil authorities? Yes. Read the following cases, and Lincoln's General order 100, Footnote #9
"But there is another description of government, called also by publicists a government de facto, but which might, perhaps, be more aptly denominated a government of paramount force. Its distinguishing characteristics are (1) that its existence is maintained by active military power within the territories, and against the rightful authority of an established and lawful government; and (2) that while it exists it must necessarily be [229 U.S. 416, 429] obeyed in civil matters by private citizens who, by acts of obedience rendered in submission to such force, do not become responsible, as wrongdoers, for those acts, though not warranted by the laws of the rightful government. Actual governments of this sort are established over districts differing greatly in extent and conditions. They are usually administered directly by military authority, but they may be administered, also, by civil authority, supported more or less directly by military force." Thornington v. Smith, 8 Wall. 1, 9, 19 L. ed. 361, 363. Macleod v. U.S, 229 U.S. 416 1913
"While it is held to be the right of a conqueror to levy contributions upon the enemy in their seaports, towns, or provinces which may be in his military possession by conquest, and to apply the proceeds to defray the expenses of the war, this right is to be exercised within such limitations that it may not savor of confiscation. As the result of military occupation, the taxes and duties payable by the inhabitants to the former government become payable to the military occupant, unless he sees fit to substitute for them other rates or modes of contributions to the expenses of the government. The moneys so collected are to be used for the purpose of paying the expenses of government under the military occupation, such as the salaries of the judges and the police, and for the payment of the expenses of the army." Macleod v. U.S, 229 U.S. 416 1913
To also prove that military occupation still exists, ask yourself this. Is the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified under duress, military occupation; and written and passed by a de facto Congress still in existence? Yes! If a State would today remove the Fourteenth Amendment and the statutory laws this amendment created from their State laws, do you think the federal government would send in the military again? Of course it would. So did the military occupation end? I hope by now you know the answer to that.
Have you never wondered why the government sends your tax dollars all over the world via the IMF and the World Bank etc. etc., with Americans paying the bill, without ever putting this up for a vote? Read the following quote.
"In New Orleans v. New York Mail S. S. Co. 20 Wall. 387, 393, 22 L. ed. 354, it was said, with respect to the powers of the military government over the city of New Orleans after its conquest, that it had 'the same power and rights in territory held by conquest as if the territory had belonged to a foreign country and had been subjugated in a foreign war. In such cases the conquering power has the right to displace the pre-existing authority, and to assume to such extent as it may deem proper the exercise by itself of all the powers and functions of government. It may appoint all the necessary officers and clothe them with designated powers, larger or smaller, according to its pleasure. It may prescribe the revenues to be paid, and apply them to its own use or otherwise. It may do anything necessary to strengthen itself and weaken the enemy. There is no limit to the powers that may be exerted in such cases, save those which are found in the laws and usages of war." Dooley v. U.S., 182 U.S. 222 1901
To drive home the relevance of British Colony part 1&2 and what I just said above about taxes, read and understand the below quotes from the Declaration of Rights, September 5, 1774. Maybe it will sink in, we are taxed by Britain and we have not only asked for it but, demanded the benefits supplied by the king, past and present.
"Resolved, 4. That the foundation of English liberty, and of all free government, is a right in the people to participate in their legislative council: and as the English colonists are not represented, and from their local and other circumstances, can not properly be represented in the British Parliament, they are entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in their several provincial legislatures, where their right of representation can alone be preserved, in all cases of taxation and internal polity, subject only to the negative of their sovereign, in such manner as has been heretofore used and accustomed. But, from the necessity of the case, and a regard to the mutual interest of both countries, WE CHEERFULLY CONSENT TO THE OPERATION OF SUCH ACTS OF THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT, as are BONA FIDE, restrained to the regulation of our external commerce, for the PURPOSE OF SECURING THE COMMERCIAL ADVANTAGES OF THE WHOLE EMPIRE TO THE MOTHER COUNTRY, and the COMMERCIAL BENEFITS OF ITS RESPECTIVE MEMBERS; excluding every idea of taxation, internal or ETERNAL, for raising a revenue on the SUBJECTS IN AMERICA, without their consent." Declaration of Rights, from September 5, 1774 (The forefathers wanted the commercial benefits without paying the taxes that go hand in hand, it does not work that way Patriots.)
"Resolved, 7. That these, His Majesty's colonies, are likewise entitled to all the IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES GRANTED and confirmed to them by ROYAL CHARTERS, or secured by their several codes of provincial laws." Declaration of Rights, from September 5, 1774
As further proof, are not all States divided into military Districts? At first glance you may not think so. However, look at your District Courts, in your State. They are the enforcement arm of the admiralty law/kings law and legislation passed on a daily basis. As I said before the voting Districts are also left over from the Reconstruction Acts. In every court room a military flag is flown, a war flag not the Title 4, flag of peace. Are you not required to obtain a license from the de facto government for every aspect of commerce, and the use of their military script/fiat money? Americans are taxed and controlled in the following ways, to name a few:
1. Social Security number - license to work.
2. Drivers license - permission to conduct commerce and travel on the military roads.
3. Occupational license - permission to perform a God given right.
4. State and local privilege license - license to work in the State, county or city.
5. Marriage license - permission for a right granted by God Almighty.
6. Hunting and Fishing license - government taxing property of God Almighty, etc.etc.etc.
Every license or permit is a use tax and is financial slavery, you are controlled in every aspect of your life. All licenses came about after the Fourteenth Amendment and the military occupation, which we are now under. The reason all this has taken place in America is, to colonize the world for Britain. The United States has been the enforcement arm/cannon fodder for Britain since the Civil War.
"The decisions wherein grounds were found for avoiding a ruling on the constitutionality of the Reconstruction Act leave the impression that our highest tribunal failed in these cases to measure up to the standard of the judiciary in a constitutional democracy. If the Reconstruction Act was unconstitutional, the people oppressed by it were entitled to protection by the judiciary against such unconstitutional oppression." Tulane Law Review, The Dubious Origin Of The Fourteenth Amendment. page 34
"The adversary or the skeptic might assert that, after a lapse of more than eighty years, it is too late to question the constitutionality or validity of the coerced ratifications of the Fourteenth Amendment even on substantial and serious grounds. The ready answer is that there is no statute of limitations that will cure a gross violation of the amendment procedure laid down by Article V of the Constitution." Tulane Law Review, The Dubious Origin Of The Fourteenth Amendment. page 43
If you want to read more about the military occupation and the War Powers Act, read Footnote #11. This issue concerning the Constitution has to be understood by the Patriots, before you can help others see the illusion. We Patriots need to be able to tell others how we arrived in this condition. But, this will never happen as long as we defend a dead treaty, and expect a lawful remedy from a de facto government.
Is it any wonder why Americans look at us like were nuts. We defy a de facto government and take its benefits. We curse its judges and praise a de facto Constitution that, denies the judges the ability to give remedy to the enemy. We praise the legal document that gave Congress the power to declare us as enemies and curse the Congress for their action. Wake up Patriots! How do you expect Americans to listen to the truth, when we are so easily made to look like fools by the government propaganda machine, and we make it easy for them. We tell the American people the sky is falling, but never give them a remedy, other than keeping the same damn document that enslaved us. We do not tell the American people that there was life before the Civil War Occupation and the Fourteenth Amendment unlawful Constitution, so fear of the unknown will keep them from wanting to learn. The only remedy I see, except for God Almighty's Judgement, is to expose the fraud. See Footnote 13.
Until you accept the truth about the Constitution you will not be able to understand the information in British Colony part 1&2. I will end this research paper in this way. Someone asked me, "are you not afraid to be killed by the government"? I told them what Shadrach, Meshach, and Abendnego said:
"If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king, But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up." Daniel 3:17-18
Mark Twain: "You see, my kind of loyalty was loyalty to one's country, not to institutions or its officeholders. The country is the real thing; it is the thing to watch over and care for and be loyal to; institutions extraneous, they are its mere clothing, and clothing can wear out, become ragged, cease to be comfortable, cease to protect the body from winter, disease, and death. To be loyal to rags, to shout for rags, to worship rags, to die for rags--that is a loyalty of unreason; it is pure animal; it belongs to monarchy; was invented by monarchy; let monarchy keep it. I was from Connecticut, whose constitution declared "That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their benefit, and that they have at all times an undeniable and indefensible right to alter their form of government in such a manner as they think expedient." Under that gospel, the citizen who thinks that the Commonwealth's political clothes are worn out and yet holds his peace and does not agitate for a new suit, is disloyal; he is a traitor. That he may be the only one who thinks he sees this decay does not excuse him; it is his duty to agitate, anyway, and it is the duty of others to vote him down if they do not see the matter as he does."
submitted by email@example.com
Posted by boxcarro