Symbol literacy 101

April 7, 2014

Disney RFID Bracelets And The Mark Of The Beast

Look into how Walt Disney was a paedophile and how Disneyland etc are used within the pedo-rings as exposed by Fritz Springmeier. Notice the three 6′s of the Beast in the logo of Disney. Imagine in the near future when everyone is forced to wear a microwave bracelet after economic collapse or biological weapon attack. Imagine the destruction of the blood that continually passes through this microwave field killing DNA and life as we know it. We live in an invisible concentration camp.

Both William Donovan and William Casey were Knights of Malta working on behalf of the Order of Malta’s US Intelligence network for the Temporal Power of the Pope of Rome and his handlers at the Curia Generalizia. Please read over the work of Fritz Springmeier on the subject of Disney whilst also looking into how Walt Disney was a paedophile.

The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” -William Casey, CIA Director

Proof that Walt Disney was a 33 degree Mason and pervert!! [Video]

http://theunhivedmind.com/wordpress2/?p=12367

How the CIA Helped Disney Conquer Florida
Apr 14, 2013 4:45 AM EDT

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/14/how-the-cia-helped-disney-conquer-florida.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+thedailybeast/articles+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29

DIRTY DISNEY MOMENTS 3- HIDDEN IMAGES

Symbol Literacy 101

Symbol Literacy, including these symbols you are reading which have multiple defining meanings, and Logo Pattern Recognition are long lost skills. The world and the Baal-Force (Demonic Universal Intelligence) speaks to us daily, moment by moment but many people are deaf. As it is said in the Bible…”having ears you hear not, and having eyes you see not.” Thus this enemy that many people see not and hear not messes with many peoples heads a lot. Ads, commercials, and movies are symbolic means of communication. Our adversary and His intelligent with his knowledge slaves also speaks to us using their own symbolic lexicon or alphabet. Symbolic Perception, like many sacred arts, serves TWO important functions. . Keeping out the viral memes and messages harmful to the body politic, that is, to the mind, and subconscious. Turning off the TV is not going to help, but knowing what is coming across it, will. And Assists in whole brain thinking, or using both sides of your brain which enhances the development of your natural creativity. It enhances your own life, and opens you to your own Power Symbols, your own canon or archive that is unique to yourself, that is an expression of your own deepest core. Be careful, you’re seeking Him, not working to become Him. You cannot do this for others, you can only achieve this success by seeking Him in Prayer and using his word for your guide. Now call the guys in the white coats my straight jacket needs adjusting. He is the Father of all life Yahweh.

Elements of Ecclesiastical Law

April 6, 2014

Does anyone believe the Vatican is talking out of their ass here? Or could they mean what they claim? I take these people very seriously when they make these claims;

Elements of Ecclesiastical Law Vol. 1 53-54 you will find the following:

“The Holy See and civil governments may be annulled by the Pope. Again, it seems to be commonly admitted that in all agreements entered into by the Sovereign Pontiff this condition is understood: Nisi aliud exigat causa gravis et extraordinaria propter bonum commune ecclesiae. (In other words, unless you show cause of extraordinary evidence that you are not ruled by the Pope you’re presumed to be ruled by The Holy See.)

Elements of Ecclesiastical Law Vol. 1 53-54 goes on to say: “no national law can become legitimate except by at least the tacit or legal consent of the Pope. Again, the jus particulare of a nation always remains subject to the authority of the Holy See in such manner as to be repealable at any time by it. Hence, the jus nationtie, or the exceptional ecclesiastical laws prevalent in the United States, may be abolished at any time by the Sovereign Pontiff.”

On the Rights; and Pereogitives Church is necessarily involved, in these things, though they be temporal, the Church may by right exert its power, and the civil state ought to yield.73“-In this proposition is contained the full explanation of the indirect spiritual power of the Church over the state.” The proposition is proved: 1. From reason.-Either the Church has an indirect power over the state, or the state has an indirect power over the Church. Then is no alternative. For, as experience teaches, conflicts may arise between Church and state.” Now, in any question as to the competence of the two powers,” either there must be some judge to decide what docs and what does not fall within their respective spheres, or they are delivered over to perpetual doubt and to perpetual conflict. But who can define what is or is not within the jurisdiction of the Church in faith and morals, except a judge who knows what the sphere of faith and morals contains and how far it extends? 7.

It is clear that the civil power cannot define how far the circumference of faith and morals extends. To do this it must know the whole deposit of explicit and implicit faith. . Therefore, the Church alone can fix the limits of its jurisdiction; and if the Church can fix the limits of its own jurisdiction, it can fix the limits of all other jurisdiction- at least, so as to warn it off its own domain.77 Hence, the Church is supreme in matters of religion and conscience: she knows the limits of her own jurisdiction, and, therefore, also the limits of the competence of the civil power. Again, if it be said that the state is altogether independent of the Church, it would follow 7. that the state would also be independent of the law of God in things temporal; for the divine law must be promulgated by the Church. It is unmeaning to say that princes have no superrior but the law of God;

Card. Tarqu., 1. C., lib. i .. p. 56, n. 55. 7S Manning, 1. C., pp. 70, 71. .• Craiss., n. 698. ,.
Cfr. Phillips, Kirchenr.. vol. iL, pp. 546, 547· .• Manning, 1. C., pp. 54, 55. 77 Cfr. Syllab.
r864, prop. 19, 20, 39, 42, 54′. Cra,ss .. n. 698.
of the Roman Pontiff. 255

7. for a law IS no superior without an authority to judge and to apply it. II. We next prove our thesis from authourity. \We refer to the famous bull Ullam Sallctam, issued by Pope Boniface VIII. in 13°2. This bull declares that there is but one true Church,·· and therefore but one head of the Church-the Roman Pontiff; that there are two swords-i.e., two powers-the spiritual and the temporal; the latter must be subject to the former. The bull finally winds up with this definition: “And this we declare, affirm, define (definimus), and pronounce, that it is necessary for the salvation of every human creature that he should be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” 5′ This is undoubtedly a de fide definition-i.e., an utterance ex cathedra.”‘ In fact, the bull, though occasioned by and published during the contest between Boniface VIlI. and Philip the Fair, King of France-who held that he was in no sense subject to the Roman Pontiff-had for its object, as is evident from its whole tenor and wording, this: to define dogmatically the relation of the Church to the state·’ in general that is, universally, not merely the relations between the Church and the particular state or nation-France. Now, what is .the meanIng of this de fide definition? There are two interpretations: one, given by the enemies of the Papacy, is that the Pope, in this bull, claims,” not merely an indirect, but a direct and absolute, power over the state, thus completely subordinating it to the Church; 5′ that is, subjecting it to the Church, even in purely temporal things. This explanation, given formerly by the partisans of Philip the Fair,by the Regalists in the reign of Louis XIV., and at present by Janus, Dr. Schulte, 7′ Manning,!. C., p. 51. Phillips, 1. C., vol. iii., pp. 256, 257; cfr. Darras, Hist., vol. iii., p. 454.” Fessler, True and False Infallibility, p. 81. •• Manning, I. C., p. 51 82 Phillips, I. C., vol. iii., pp. 255. 256. •• Cfr. ib., p. 206 . Cfr. Manning, I. c, pp. 61-64.

ECCLESIASTICAL EMPIRE

“Those who know what Rome has once been,are best able to appreciate what she is.” – Hallam

Hmmmm….Sounds like we’re nobody’s in no where land..

The United States gave up all rights, title, and interest. If you claim to be a U.S. Citizen by your own admission, you also have no rights, no title, and no interest. “The United States of America by contract, gave up all right, title or interest in said property, without any conditions set forth;” [Ensminger Case 1995]

A.) ‘Our survey of the legal landscape as it existed in March 1989 indicates, that, in general, members of the public have no constitutional right to be protected by the State from harm inflicted by third parties. [E.g., Fox v. Custis, 712 F.2d 84, 88 (4th

Cir. 1983); Wells v. Walker , 852 F.2d 368, 370 (8th Cir. 1988), cert. Denied, 489 U.S. 1012, 109 S.Ct. 1121, 103 L.Ed.2d 184 (1989); Ketchum v. Alameda County, 811 F.2d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir. 1987); Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982).]

B.) Judge Posner aptly explained the reasoning behind this general principle when he stated in Bowers that:

The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let “We the People of the United States” alone; it does not require their agency federal government or their state(s) to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order….for those not a party to the contract (Constitution).

Thus, because there is no constitutional duty to provide such protection for the Public at Large, {the state’s} failure to do so is not actionable under Title 42, section 1983, of the United States Code (U.S.C.). [emphasis added]

“But indeed, no person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breech of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact (contract), but he is not a party to it. The States are a party to it…” (emphasis added). [Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438 (1854)]

“The People” does not include you and me. “The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests.” [Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore. 32 U.S. 243]

Members of the public have no constitutional right to be protected by the State from harm inflicted by third parties. [E.g., Fox v. Custis, 712 F.2d 84, 88 (4th Cir. 1983); Wells v. Walker , 852 F.2d 368, 370 (8th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1012, 109 S.Ct. 1121, 103 L.Ed.2d 184 (1989); Ketchum v. Alameda County, 811 F.2d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir. 1987); Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982).]

No constitutional right exists under the Ninth Amendment, or to any other provision of the Constitution of the United States, “…to trust the Federal Government and to rely on the integrity of its pronouncements.” [MAPCO, Inc. v Carter (1978, Em Ct App) 573 F2d 1268, cert den 437 US 904, 57 L Ed 2d 1134, 98 S Ct 3090.]

Members of the public have no right to petition for a redress of grievance. [UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA in the case of “We the People Foundation, Inc. et al. v. United States,” No. 1:04-cv-01211 EGS, admitted in the Civil War era, however, the U. S. Congress enacted Rules abolishing the duty to respond, a change later sanctioned by the Supreme Court [see: 96 Yale Law Journal 142, 164 (1986); Bieregu v. Reno, 59 F.3rd. 1445, 1453, (3rd. Cir. 1995)]. Furthermore, U.S. FEDERAL Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in his Order and Opinion upheld the position of the UNITED STATES et al., to deny the Human Rights of “We the People,” et al., the “Right of Petition” in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DICTRICT OF COLUMBIA on August 31, 2005.]

There are no sovereigns citizens in the United States. That is an oxymoron.

“…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.” CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp471-472

Sovereignty: The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any

independent state is governed; supreme political authority; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration… [Blacks Law 5th Edition page 1252]

Subject: 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. [Blacks Law 5th Edition page 1277]

Subject: verb. to bring under one’s control by force of arms — see conquer [Merriam Online Thesaurus] Subjected: transitive verb. [Merriam Online Thesaurus]

1 a : to bring under control or dominion : subjugate b : to make (as oneself) amenable to the discipline and control of a superior

2 : to make liable : predispose

3 : to cause or force to undergo or endure (something unpleasant, inconvenient, or trying)

— sub·jec·tion \ noun

“Citizenship connotes membership in a political society and implies a dutyof permanent allegiance to that society.”

-David Weissbrodt, Immigration Law and Procedure In a Nutshell.Citizenship: The status of being a citizen. See also Corporate citizenship… [Blacks Law 5th Edition page 222]

“Citizenship, is, by definition, a condition of allegiance to, and participation in, a governmental jurisdiction. It means, for a collective order, a pledge of loyalty, commitment to actively participate in civics and community, and willingness to serve when and where called upon. Citizenship begins within the individual but is nurtured by the country.” —Eduardo Aguirre, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Sovereigns are not citizens. Citizens are synonymous with subjects and subjects are synonymous with slaves. As in Subjected. So look at this case again below. Did King George maintain his sovereignty over his subjects? Did the 56 signers of the compact gain their sovereignty because they signed the compact and not the rest of the people? The answer is Yes! As a U.S. Citizen or American, you are a debtor under the 14th amendment, due to your “choice” of nationality.

“…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.” CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp471-472 [Padelford Case of 1854 page. 35] *41

“Now the principle at the bottom of all these propositions is this: The States have no power, by the exercise of which, they can defeat all the ends of Government-the General Government, or any of those ends. But the States, by the exercise of the taxing power, can take from their inhabitants every cent the inhabitants can spare, and live. According to the principle of this decision, therefore, the States have no power to lay any tax on their inhabitants; and if they have no power to tax, it follows that they have no power to enable them to keep up their State Governments; and without State Governments, they have no power to keep themselves alive, as States. The principle comes to this: that the States, in making the Constitution, intended to give up the power of self preservation (sovereignty).” [Padelford Case 1854 pg. 35]

State citizens, State nationals, and Sovereign States gave up all power when they signed the constitution. And they weren’t states to begin with they were Royal Charters granted by the King. Something that is granted may be un-granted.

Sovereign States are: States whose subjects or citizens are in the habit of obedience to them… [Blacks Law 5th Edition page 1238]

You are NOT a signatory to the compact or the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America and “they” did not “pledge” for you…”they” did it for “their” posterity. You think that some “colonists” had some right? Then, why did the colonists not participate in any election or any “vote”? During the third presidential election why did only ten governors vote? I will tell you why….”the colonists” had no voice. These men were “proprietors” of company…the East India Company being the “Grand Corporation” with its “red, white, and blue” striped flag.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

So, who did the “establishing and ordaining”???? It was “the People” of the “United States” who “ordained and established” THEIR Con-stitution FOR the United States of America.

Someone established rules and regulations for someone else. The one doing the stablishing and ordaining is in the SUPERIOR POSITION.

Where did they get the authority to do this? Easy: Article 6 clause 1….they assumed the debt repayment assurance of the United States of America to payback the debt to the King….PERIOD.

The word: Country means “to count trees”. It was the “count of the trees” or “The Rent of the Woods” that was an accounting procedure of the Exchequer in the Virginia Company and the East India Company.

You have no rights in the United States, because you are an American debtor under the 14th Amendment. The U.S.A. is bankrupt and has been since the drafting of the Treaty of Paris.

I’d rather be a human being myself. Now I could go on, and add 150 or so of more pages verifying this, but then we live in a society with severe attention deficit disorder. They are clearly explaining the difference between the law makers, and the citizens. Problem is the citizens love they’re servitude to much. They don’t want to fix anything, they want someone else to do that for them.

They have contractual membership in the corporation they deserve, with fringe benefits that allows them the opportunity to choose another corporate representative to lead the corporation. Candidates are of course pre selected by the corporation itself.

Beatles – Nowhere man – Live in Munich 1966

This version is clearer;

The Definitive Treaty of Peace 1783 Article 4

April 6, 2014

Stated: “It is agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted.”

George Washington divided the States (Estates) into Districts. [Messages and papers of the Presidents Vo 1, pg 99. Webster’s 1828 dictionary for definition of Estate.]

The Articles of Confederation Article XII

“All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed, and debts contracted by, or under the authority of Congress, before the assembling of the United States, in pursuance of the present confederation, shall be deemed and considered as a charge against the United States, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said United States, and the public faith are hereby solemnly pledged.”

On September 17, 1787 Nine State delegates approve the Constitution. The other four states silently acquiesced and it was ratified despite the rules under the articles of confederation of a unanimous decision. [Anti-Federalist Papers]The States have now become Constitutors.

Constitutor: “In the civil law, one who, by simple agreement, becomes responsible for the payment of another’s debt.” [Blacks Law Dictionary 5 Constitutum: In the civil law, an agreement to pay a subsisting debt which exists without any stipulation in that it must be for an existing debt.” [Blacks Law 5 Edition page 283]

Constitutio: “In civil law, an imperial ordinance, decree, or constitution, distinguished from Lex, Senatus-Consultum, and other kinds of law and having its effect from the sole will of the emperor. A sum paid according to an agreement.” [Blacks Law 5 page 282]
edition

Constitutiones: “Laws promulgated, i.e., enacted by the Roman Emperor…The emperor had this power of irresponsible enactment by virtue of a certain lex regia, whereby he was made the fountain of justice and of mercy.” [Blacks Law 5 “‘Civil Law,’ ‘Roman Law’ and ‘Roman Civil Law’ are convertible phrases, meaning the same system of jurisprudence.” [Black’s 3rd p 332.]

Article XI section I of the U.S. Constitution
Keeps the loans from the King valid it states; “All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.”

Article I Section XIII Clause II of the U.S. Constitution
states that “Congress has the power to borrow money on the faith and credit of the United States.” This was needed so the United States (Which went into Bankruptcy on January 1, 1788) could borrow money and then because the States were a party to the Constitution they would also be liable for it.

The States were now liable for the debt owed to the King, but the people of America were not because they were not a party to the Constitution because it was never put to them for a vote.

An Act making provision for the payment of the Debt of the United States was passed on August 4th, 1790 which can be found at [1 U.S. Statutes at Large pages 138-178.] This Act for all intents and purposes abolished the States and Created the Districts. In this Act each District was assigned a portion of the debt. The next step was for the states to reorganize their governments which most did in 1790. This had to be done because the States needed to legally bind the people to the debt. The original State Constitutions were never submitted to the people for a vote. So the governments wrote new constitutions and submitted them to people for a vote thereby binding the people to the debts owed to Great Britain. The people became citizens of the State where they resided and ipso facto a citizen of the United States. A citizen is a member of a fictional entity and it is synonymous with subject.

If one goes to 8 U.S. statutes at large 116-132 you will find “The Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation”. This Treaty was signed on November 19th, 1794 which was twelve years after the War. Article 2 of the Treaty states that the King’s Troops were still occupying the United States. The troops would return to England by June 1st, 1796.
On September 30th, 1783 Benjamin Franklin, Esquire, John Adams, Esquire, and John Jay, Esquire, negotiated the terms of the debt repayment to Great Britain. [Definitive Peace Treaty of Paris 1783]
Benjamin Franklin Esquire was working for Great Britain, United States, and France. He was a triple agent who studied the works of Sir John Dee of Great Britain, who was known as Agent 007. [Secret Mysteries of Americas Beginnings]

Esquire defined in Merriam Dictionary means:
1 : a member of the English gentry ranking below a knight
2 : a candidate for knighthood serving as shield bearer and attendant to a knight
3 —used as a title of courtesy usually placed in its abbreviated form after the surname
4 archaic : a landed proprietor

“When people desired to come to this country for the purpose of settlement, it was necessary for them to· obtain permission from the government interested in that portion of the new country which they expected to occupy. The permits thus granted formed the basis of the new governments set upon this side of the Atlantic. Sometimes these permits were granted by the king to a company, whose members either sent out colonists to the new country or came themselves as colonists. Such permits were known as Royal Charters and were in reality a form of constitution granted by the king to the colonists, defining their rights and privileges.

They usually outlined the form of government, providing for a governor and council. Sometimes these permits were granted to individuals called proprietors, and the governments set up by them were called Proprietary Governments. These proprietors in turn granted charters to their colonists, so that in general the government of charter colonies and of proprietary governments was very similar.

In time, however, all but a few of the colonies lost or surrendered their charters, passed under the direct Government of the mother country (England), and came to be known as Royal Provinces. In the royal provinces the king could rule with greater freedom. He appointed the governor and the colonial judges, and everywhere except in Massachusetts, the governor’s council also. Notwithstanding this, the colonists’ retained no small measure of self-government.” [Berle's_Self_Culture_p304]

These men were “proprietors” of companies…the East India Company being the “Grand Corporation” with its “red, white, and blue” striped flag.

You don’t think that they knew that they were still subservient to the Crown…..read the letter from Hartley of Parliament and US Foreign Affairs Secretary: Fox……

NOTE REGARDING THE ALTERNAT;
The form of the treaty was the subject of some correspondence between Fox, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and Hartley. Copies of the letters are in Bancroft’s Transcripts, Hartley’s Negotiations, II, 53, 57, NYPL On August 21, 1783, Fox wrote to Hartley:

“One thing only I must remind you of in point of form. When a treaty is signed between two Crowned Heads in order to prevent disputes about presidency, the name of the one stands first in one instrument and that of the other in the other but when the Treaty is between a crowned Head and a Republic, the name of the Monarch is mentioned first in each instrument. I believe if you will inquire upon this subject among the Corps Diplomatique, you will find this to have been the constant practice.

Hartley replied as follows under date of September 1:
The treaties are drawn out for signature as you have expressed it viz: giving precedence to the Crowned Head. The American Ministers never had a thought of disputing the priority or equality of rank & therefore I have had no occasion to mention the subject.” [British-American Diplomacy Treaty of Paris - Hunter Miller's Notes]
“Mr. American”….since “your American Ministers” never thought of disputing the priority or EQUALITY OF RANK…that being the Crown had “Precedence”…..then where does that leave you? Subject that is “subjected”, correct?

Article XI U.S. Constitution

States” All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

That’s International Treaties dealing with the International Public Order i.e., The High Contracting Parties i.e., the Pope. All Treaties signed are the Supreme Law of the Land. Therefore Contract Law is the Supreme Law of the Land, not the con-stitution!

Furthermore, you cannot dispute the debt or it will be in surmounting of insurrection and rebellion. Slavery is illegal as involuntary servitude. However, voluntary servitude is not.

14th Amendment, Amendment XIV Section 4 U.S. Constitution
States that “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.”

Article I Section 8 U.S. Constitution

States “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

“To borrow money on the credit of the United States;”
“To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;”

The constitution makes a reference to the “Law of Nations.” Ask a constitutional expert what exactly is the “Law of Nations” and your response might be shocking. They study the constitution, why don’t they study the Law of Nations? What is the Law of Nations? It is Public international law. And it is the Supreme Law of the Land.
The Law of Nations is International Law. “the law which regulates the intercourse of nations; the law of nations. The customary law which determines the rights

“Public international law concerns the structure and conduct of sovereign states, analogous entities, such as the Holy See, and intergovernmental organizations. To a lesser degree, international law also may affect multinational corporations and individuals.”
“The field of study combines two main branches: the law of nations (jus gentium) and international agreements and conventions (jus inter gentes), which have different theoretical foundations and should not be confused.”

“Public international law should not be confused with “private international law”, which is concerned with the resolution of conflict of laws. In its most general sense, international law “consists of rules and principles of general application dealing with the conduct of states and of intergovernmental organizations and with their relations inter se, as well as with some of their relations with persons, whether natural or juridical.”

What is the Holy See? The Holy See is From the Latin Sancta Sedes, Holy Chair. A term derived from the enthronement-ceremony of the bishops of Rome. The papal enjoyed reservations of benefices, customary in the Middle Ages.

The terms “Holy See” and “Apostolic See”
Every episcopal see is considered holy. In Greek, the adjective “holy” or “sacred” (ἱερά) is constantly applied to all such sees as a matter of course. In the West, the adjective is not commonly added, but it does form part of an official title of two sees: as well as Rome, the Bishopric of Mainz (the former Archbishopric of Mainz), which was also of electoral and primatial rank, bears the title of “the Holy See of Mainz” (Latin: Sancta Sedes Moguntina).

The term “see” comes from the Latin word “sedes”, meaning “seat”, which refers to the Episcopal throne (cathedra). The term “Apostolic See” can refer to any see founded by one of the Apostles, but, when used with the definite article, it is used in the Catholic Church to refer specifically to the see of the Bishop of Rome, whom that Church sees as successor of Saint Peter, the chief of the apostles. [Catholic Encyclopedia] [Wikipedia]

The Pope claims to own the entire planet through the laws of conquest and discovery.[Papal Bulls of 1455 and 1493]

The Pope has ordered the genocide and enslavement of millions of people. [Papal Bulls of 1455 and 1493] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanus_Pontifex

The Pope’s laws are obligatory on everyone. [Bened. XIV., De Syn. Dioec, lib, ix., c. vii., n. 4. Prati, 1844)(Syllabus, prop 28, 29, 44][ Elements of Ecclesiastical Law Vol. 1 53- 54]

Civil Governments are the Popes governments. If there is any doubt to the validity of any and all references they can be found also in another location other than the Avalon Project of Yale as to provide a double witness to the accounts that have taken place which have formed history and the current state of affairs. You may find the link below titled “European Treaties Bearing on the History of the United States” http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=23628818

Vyzygoth Interviews David Williams

March 30, 2012

Understanding the U.S. Constitution – The Preamble

THE RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION

March 30, 2012

No one is a sovereign in this country

March 13, 2012

No one is a sovereign in this country. You cannot be a subject, or an enemy under Military Occupation and claim you are a sovereign, you cannot be a holder of adhesion contracts, mortgages, or debts and be a sovereign.

The Constitution came to an end when Congress re declared War on the South, and then imposed Martial rule, by Military Occupation on the South. Through Military Occupation the Military removed the Republican governments from the States that were lawfully voted into office. Was not a Republican form of government guaranteed to the States by the 1787 Constitution? The same de facto Congress removed the Southern States Representatives from Congress, denying the States suffrage/representation in Congress. Since the Southern States were high Contracting parties to the Trust/Constitution created in 1787, this voided the Corporate Charter. Just as it was not a lawful act for the South to cede from the Union, without the consent of all the State parties, it was not lawful for the Corporation to continue to do business, after removing lawful high Contracting parties from their seats in Congress. Or, how about when Congress went out of session, without a date certain of reconvening, this is called Sine Die.

If that is not enough to remove the 1787 Constitution as a valid document, including the attached Bill Rights, how about the Military Commanders/Generals under direction of the Congress putting in place puppet governments in the States, in order to pass a new federal and State Constitutions. I say Congress not the Commander-in-Chief, because the de facto Congress overrode a lawful Presidents veto, effectively removing and destroying the lawful 1787 Office of President. I say a new Constitution, because the 14th Amendment totally changed the 1787 Constitution. Don’t think so, excuse me, if you and I are sovereigns (I wish it were so), why can’t we challenge the debt the U. S. Congress creates, in the United States courts? I wonder; we can’t sue the government and we do not have the right to question the debt, lets see, sovereign or subject, sounds like a subject to me. Or, how about the fact the Military Occupation and declared Emergency have never come to an end. Military Occupation and its Martial Rule is not a democracy or a republic, it is a Military Dictatorship, with the Commander-in-Chief as the supreme authority of the provisional government.

The definitions included on Military Occupation, Conquest, Martial Law and Law of the Flag. Under Military Occupation and Conquest, it is defined to be the preferred method to change as few laws as possible so you do not alarm the conquered public. I guess they know most people are ignorant of what goes on around them. Under this condition you go and do as the Commanderin-Chief says, or you are locked up or killed. If as I used to believe God Almighty was standing ready to defeat the government on my or any other Christian’s behalf, I would say so be it, I’ll go. However, God Almighty said in 1 Samuel 8: “in that day when you cry out for me, I will not hear you”.

I would say show me how as Americans we can win a War that has been waged against us without an Army? Without an Army the only other way is by gorilla warfare, which would not be possible without public support, which absolutely would not exist. If what took place after the Civil War was not bad enough, in 1933, Americans were declared enemies of the powers at be. Show me how to win this war in a Court system controlled by the occupying force, when in the new Constitution, according to the third section of the imposed 14th Amendment; judges, federal, State and local government officials, police officers, or anyone receiving benefits/paycheck from government, are prohibited from giving aid and comfort to the enemy of the Occupying government? How can a judge give you a remedy, when he would violate the public policy, when he has been told he will be removed from office, in the very Constitution he swore to uphold and protect?

I just do not choose to fight government and God Almighty, or at a minimum fight government without the aid of God Almighty. I also ask you this, do you not fight against God Almighty, when He has declared every jot and tittle of His Word will be fulfilled, and then fight a government that God Almighty is using to fulfill many of His later day Prophesies. We are told how Babylon and the Beast will be destroyed in the book of Revelations and by many of the minor Old Testament Prophets, that deal with this subject. If change were possible, because of the slumber most of America is under, it would have to be done by education, after a financial collapse etc. etc. Just because the facts dictate this conclusion, does not mean I like it, but it is the hand we have been dealt.

===

All you have to do in your State or any other State after the Civil War, is ask yourself a couple of questions.
1. Does your State Constitution prohibit the possibility of leaving/ceding from the United States?
2. Does your State Constitution guaranty 14th Amendment protection to it’s citizens?
3. Just to add another: Does your State receive federal money/benefits?

Keep in mind I don’t ask these questions without knowing the answers. The answer is yes, to all three. Once you determine this then the following applies. Any State of the United States, and I point you to the definition of “of”, is under the United States control. One, by contract/treaty, and two, by Executive control, via. Military Occupation, as a result of the conquest which took place, AFTER the Civil War. This was a political take over by a de facto Congress who is guilty of destroying the 1787 Constitution, and a Military Occupation enforced by the Judge Advocate General of the Army.

Now I have made the claim that not only has the 1787 Constitution been destroyed, along with it’s Bill of Rights, but that the U.S. government now in place is a Military government, a provisional government, as a result of the Reconstruction Acts. Yes in xistence today, not just 128 years ago, completely unnoticed by the American people. My claims and the Informer’s claims of this condition existing in this country are true. Because they are true, any State, Country, local municipality, inhabitant, Citizen, citizen, individual, Person, person, resident or declared freeman, Sui Juris Sovereign; if I left any class of living tissue out, I meant to include them also, are under Military control, and exist for the benefit of the conquering government.

You have read the facts I included in “Bend Over America”, so when you finally understand the reality of conquest and all it entails, even though you do not see the Military in the streets, at this time, the law of the conqueror governs.

PLEASE UNDERSTAND, I DON’T LIKE IT, I DON’T AGREE WITH IT, but it is the TRUTH, it is a FACT!

However, neither the Informer or I are ever complacent, we always try to disprove our facts and our beliefs, for in the end your beliefs mean nothing, if untrue. The thing is, in doing further research we are finding more to confirm the sad but true fact, of Military Occupation. I have obtained more proof from a government depository library, in the Congressional Record, on this subject, I have not yet had time to read all I have copied, or transcribe it. But here are a few samples.

“If these Southern States are conquered provinces, then by the laws of nations we are responsible for all the debts and liabilities of the Conquered country. I ask gentleman to pause before we take so great a responsibility as this upon us.”—Congressman Ross, January 26, 1867

“Republican in form!–governments formed by the Chief Executive without authority of law and upheld by the military power when deemed proper, and set aside at the suggestion of post commanders of military districts— these State governments, conceived in ignorance, brought forth in confusion, and rocked in the cradle of treason, are to be palmed upon the country as legitimate, and taken into the sisterhood of States as republican in form, with all the rights belonging to great States of the Union.” —Congressman Cullom, January 28, 1867

This is a Quote from the SOB responsible for writing and seeing to the passage of the Reconstruction Acts. The Republican majority leader Mr. Stevens from Pennsylvania, of course its not hard to be the majority when you have removed your opposition.

“Nearly two years ago the armies of a government calling itself the Confederate States of America were conquered and the government was dispersed. By the law of nations the conqueror after that had a right to say exactly what government should be administered over them or by them, keeping always within the law of nations. The conqueror had a right either to extend his own laws over those conquered States, or if no action was taken by the conqueror, then by the law of nations the old institutions were permitted to run on for the purpose of administering the local laws until such time as the conquering party should act……This bill provides the ten disorganized States shall be divided into five military districts, and that the commander of the Army shall take
charge of them through his lieutenants as governors, or you may call them commandants if you choose, not below the grade of brigadiers, who shall have the general supervision of the peace, quite, and the protection of the people, loyal and disloyal, who reside within those precincts; and that do so he may use, as the law of nations would authorize him to do, the legal tribunals wherever he may deem them competent; but they are to be considered of no validity per se, of no intrinsic force, no force in consequence of their origin, the question being wholly within the power of the conqueror, and to remain until that conqueror shall permanently supply their place with something else.” —Congressman Stevens from Pennsylvania, February 7, 1867.

“I feel, sir, that the passage of this bill is the death-knell of civil liberty, not only here but everywhere. Sad as the thought may be it is too true that almost the last hope of a once free people, that liberty is secure here, is fast passing away. The bill under consideration proposes to establish nothing more and nothing less than a military despotism….

The provisions of this bill strike down every important provision in your Constitution. You have already inaugurated enough here to destroy any Government that was ever founded….When you do that there is nothing left, I repeat, but quiet submission to your tyranny, or a resort to arms on the part of the American People to defend themselves….We are drifting to monarchy. It will come unless the people take this matter in hand and stop this progress that is being made in the downward road, and restore this shattered Government upon the basis upon which it was originally founded.”—Congressman Le Blond, February 7, 1867

“Will it aid the cause of democratic Government to exhibit this great Republic—this model, as we have sought to make it, of what every republic should be—abandoning all the functions of civil government, abrogating every thing like civil authority over one third of our domain and one third of our people, and for very imbecility and inability to agree upon any measure handing over the control of this section and these people to the absolute and sovereign will of a brigadier general in the regular Army? Will that aid the cause of free republican government anywhere on the face of the earth? It is the last resort of a decayed and dying republic. If we have no better resource than this, we may as well do at once what this would seem to be a preliminary step for doing: invite the regular Army to take control of the whole country, install itself here in the capital as the central, sovereign power, and make such laws and issue such decrees as it may see fit.”—Congressman Raymond, February 8, 1867

“Now, I again call on gentlemen who deny that the Union has been dissolved, for I suppose this military bill is to pass if any does, to pause before they take this last and final step. What does this bill do? It proclaims the Union dissolved; it declares that ten States are out of the Union; and if ten States are out all are out; the Constitution holds and binds all together or it holds none. It proclaims that the Union is dissolved; that the experiment of man’s capacity for self-government is a failure….And yet gentlemen are disposed to rush madly upon the passage of a bill declaring in substance that the Union is dissolved, establishing an absolute military despotism over ten States with a population of eight or ten million people, giving to the military commander unlimited and absolute power over life, liberty, property, and all things else.”—Congressman Harding, February 12, 1867

“As the gentleman from Pennsylvania is now in his seat I will repeat a remark which I made a short time ago when he was absent. I said that he was the first to make the startling announcement here in this House a few years ago, “That all compacts between the North and South were abrogated, and that the laws of nations and of war thenceforward controlled the destinies of each party in the conflict then pending.”—Congressman Harding, February 12, 1867

“It is true, undoubtedly true, that these States remained disorganized States in the Union. It is also undoubtedly true that those who were the conquerors upon the field of battle reduced those in rebellion to subjects.”—Congressman Eldridge, February 7, 1867

You see under Military Occupation, as defined by the Law of Nations governing the fighting of wars and conquest, also read the Lieber Code/general order 100, I included in “Bend Over America”, the conquering government leaves as many laws of the conquered government in place, and or sets provisional governments to rule the public. The conquering government can also transfer the Military governance of the public to the Civil Authority, which they have set up as a provisional government. The governing authority over the conquered land was transferred to the Attorney General, under the direction of the Commander-in-Chief. Title 5 is the codified rules for the provisional government, just as a matter of deduction. Here are a few more examples:

“The following bureaus shall be established in this department [The Department of Justice]: a Bureau of International Law, a Bureau of Revenue Law, a Bureau of Military and Navel Law, a Bureau of Postal Law, a Bureau of Land Management Law.”—Congressional Globe, concerning H.R. 1328

“This Bill, however, does transfer to the Law Department, or the Department of Justice as it is now called, the cognizance of all subjects of martial law, and cognizance of all subjects of military and navel law, except that portion of the administration of military justice which relates to military court martial, their proceedings, and the supervision of records.” Congressman Lawrence “If a question of martial law is to be determined by the law officers of government, it will now belong to the Attorney General, or to this Department of Justice. It will not belong to the Judge Advocate General of the Army. He will not be called upon for any opinion relating to martial law or military law except as to that portion of the administration of military law which relates to military justice.”—Congressman Lawrence

“In other words, the Judge Advocate General, instead of giving legal opinions to the states of the union, their right to call upon the government for military protection, or military aid, and other grave Constitutional questions, will be limited.”—Congressman Lawrence

“…The Eighth Section provides that the Attorney General is hereby empowered to make all necessary rules and regulations for the government…. “…The Eleventh Section provides that all monies hereafter drawn out of the Treasury upon requisition of the Attorney General shall be dispersed by such one of the clerks herein provided for the Attorney General as he may designate, and so much of the First Section of the Act, making appropriations, past March 3rd, 1859, as provides that money drawn out of the Treasury upon requisition of the Attorney General shall be dispersed by such dispersing officer as the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby repealed…. “…The Fifteenth Section provides that the supervisory powers now exercised by the Secretary of the Interior over the accounts of the district attorneys, marshals, clerks, and other officers of the courts of the United States, shall be exercised by the Attorney General….”H.R. 1328

“Now look at what has been done. That very party obtained control of the Government. There has been war; that war is over, but the Union is not restored, and at this very moment the public debt, mountain high, is casting its deadly and blighting shadow of bankruptcy over the whole country. We are literally bankrupts to day; and generations to come must be ground to the earth under the crushing weight of this monstrous debt.”—Congressman Harding, February 12, 1867

“Sec. 13. Be it further enacted, That all laws now in force in Louisiana, consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and with the provisions of this act, shall remain in force until repealed or modified: Provide, That no person shall be competent to act as a juror who is not an elector under the provisions of this act:

And provided also, That all the expenses of and incident to the administration of the provisional governments herein provided for shall be collected and paid as is now done for the support of the present government of Louisiana.” Reported by Congressman Elliot, February 11, 1867

This should drive home the painful truth the Informer and I have been writing about for some time. I know it is hard for some to except, because it removes so many supposed remedies, and the hope of the 1787 Constitution coming to our rescue. I wish it were so, however the overwhelming evidence cannot, I repeat, cannot be rebutted!

James Montgomery

BILL OF RIGHTS FRAUD

March 7, 2012

The Bill of Rights Fraud Part I
January 25, 2011
By Marc MkKoy

The Bill of Rights Fraud Part I

After having this case and others for 16 years, and posting to the internet with no response, I figured it shook to the core beliefs that people do not accept the facts as stated in numerous legal books that the Bill of Rights was never intended for the people like you and I in the states. You, of course, like to cite the Constitution and Bill of Rights all the time, little knowing that in doing so you put yourself at their feet groveling as a slave should do.

This case and others to follow in Part II, if understood, will show just how corrupt the founding fathers were in keeping to themselves the contract between themselves and no others in the states. Just as Lysander Spooner stated, the Constitution was of no authority. Why people have not found out by now shows how good the fraud has been, and how brainwashed the average American is. To keep the articles from becoming too long to digest I break the whole article in two parts. This first part is all the John Barron case with no comments interjected so I don’t make any confusing statements. The Part II has a brief injection of my comments, otherwise it’s all from the Constitutional Law book. To tell you how it will shake your core beliefs to the foundation, I had a paralegal friend here for a visit. I brought up the subject that the Bill of Rights was not his. He immediately reacted with ‘no it isn’t so’. Well I walked to my office and brought out what you will read in Part II. After reading maybe five pages, he said ‘no, it can’t be’, let me see the Barron case itself. Now mind you, he is sharper than most attorneys and other paralegals and did not want to believe what he was reading. So I handed him the Barron Case , which you will read here and it has never been overturned to this day. After reading it he said, why those… [expletive deleted], no wonder why we lose in all cases. I am reading it and still find it hard to believe they would do this. So when he asked to whom does it apply, I brought out various other certified documents and showed him. Then his core beliefs just had an ice cold ice pick driven through them and he was shook up to say the least. Now in Part II you will read how they incorporated those Bill of Rights into your life which gave them more control over you than if they hadn’t done a thing.

Does 14th Amendment mean anything to you? Do you know that only 14th Amendment people can use the Bill of Rights and when you do invoke any of the original ten Bill of Rights you admit to being covered by the 14th and the Ashwander doctrine will bury you? So beware, you will go into cognitive dissonance, guaranteed because your core beliefs will be shattered to say the least and you will not think the same things you have for all your life to this point, IF it does sink in what this criminal government has done to all of us today, and all your family all the way back to 1776.

The Informer

9-23-2006

32 U.S. 243

ON WRIT OF ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Syllabus

The provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States.

The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation, and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally and necessarily applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes.

This case was instituted by the plaintiff in error, against the City of Baltimore, under its corporate title of “The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore,” to recover damages for injuries to the wharf property of the plaintiff, arising from the acts of the corporation. Craig & Barron, of whom the plaintiff was survivor, were owners of an extensive and highly productive wharf in the eastern section of Baltimore, enjoying, at the period of their purchase of it, the deepest water in the harbor. The city, in the asserted exercise of its corporate authority over the harbor, the paving of streets, and regulating grades for paving, and over the health of Baltimore, diverted from their accustomed and natural course certain streams of water which flow from the range of hills bordering the city, and diverted them, partly by adopting new grades of streets, and partly by the necessary results of paving, and partly by mounds, [p*244] embankments and other artificial means purposely adapted to bend the course of the water to the wharf in question. These streams becoming very full and violent in rains, carried down with them from the hills and the soil over which they ran large masses of sand and earth, which they deposited along, and widely in front of the wharf of the plaintiff. The alleged consequence was that the water was rendered so shallow that it ceased to be useful for vessels of an important burden, lost its income, and became of little or no value as a wharf. This injury was asserted to have been inflicted by a series of ordinances of the corporation, between the years 1815 and 1821; and that the evil was progressive; and that it was active and increasing even at the institution of this suit in 1822.

At the trial of the cause in the Baltimore county court, the plaintiff gave evidence tending to prove the original and natural course of the streams, the various works of the corporation from time to time to turn them in the direction of this wharf, and the ruinous consequences of these measures to the interests of the plaintiff. It was not asserted by the defendants, that any compensation for the injury was ever made or proffered, but they justified under the authority they deduced from the charter of the city, granted by the legislature of Maryland, and under several acts of the legislature conferring powers on the corporation in regard to the grading and paving of streets, the regulation of the harbor and its waters, and to the health of the city. They also denied, that the plaintiff had shown any cause of action in the declaration, asserting that the injury complained of was a matter of public nuisance, and not of special or individual grievance in the eye of the law. This latter ground was taken on exception, and was also urged as a reason for a motion in arrest of judgment. On all points, the decision of Baltimore county court was against the defendants, and a verdict for $4,500 was rendered for the plaintiff. An appeal was taken to the court of appeals, which reversed the judgment of Baltimore county court, and did not remand the case to that court for a further trial. From this judgment, the defendant in the court of appeals prosecuted a writ of error to this court. [p*245]

The counsel for the plaintiff presented the following points: the plaintiff in error will contend that apart from the legislative sanctions of the state of Maryland, and the acts of the corporation of Baltimore, holding out special encouragement and protection to interests in wharves constructed on the shores of the Patapsco river, and particularly of the wharf erected by Craig and the plaintiff, Barron; the right and profit of wharfage, and use of the water at the wharf, for the objects of navigation, was a vested interest and incorporeal hereditament, inviolable even by the state except on just compensation for the privation; but the act of assembly and the ordinance of the City are relied on as enforcing the claim to the undisturbed enjoyment of the right.

This right was interfered with, and the benefit of this property taken away from the plaintiff by the corporation avowedly, as the defence showed, for public use, for an object of public interest — the benefit more immediately of the community of Baltimore, the individuals, part of the population of Maryland, known by the corporate title of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. The “inhabitants” of Baltimore are thus incorporated by the Acts of 1796, ch. 68. As a corporation, they are made liable to be sued, and authorized to sue, to acquire and hold and dispose of property and, within the scope of the powers conferred by the charter, are allowed to pass ordinance and legislative acts, which it is declared by the charter shall have the same effect as acts of assembly, and be operative, provided they be not repugnant to the laws of the state, or the constitution of the state, or of the United States. The plaintiff will contend accordingly:

1. That the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, though viewed even as a municipal corporation, is liable for tort and actual misfeasance, and that it is a tort, and would be so even in the state, acting in her immediate sovereignty to deprive a citizen of his property, though for public uses, without indemnification; that, regarding the corporation as acting with the delegated power of the state, the act complained of is not the less an actionable tort.

2. That this is the case of an authority exercised under a [p*246]

State, the corporation appealing to the legislative acts of Maryland for the discretional power which it has exercised.

3. That this exercise of authority was repugnant to the constitution of the United States, contravening the fifth article of the amendments to the constitution, which declares that “private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation,” the plaintiff contending, that this article declares principles which regulate the legislation of the states for the protection of the people in each and all the states, regarded as citizens of the United States or as inhabitants subject to the laws of the Union.

4. That under the evidence, prayers, and pleadings in the case, the constitutionality of this authority exercised under the state must have been drawn in question, and that this court has appellate jurisdiction of the point, from the judgment of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the highest court of that state, that point being the essential ground of the plaintiff’s pretention in opposition to the
power and discussion of the corporation.

5. That this court, in such appellate cognisance, is not confined to the establishment of an abstract point of construction, but is empowered to pass upon the right or title of either party, and may therefore determine all points incidental or preliminary to the question of title and necessary in the course to that inquiry; that consequently, the question is for this court’s determination whether the declaration avers actionable matter, or whether the complaint is only of a public nuisance, and on that head, the plaintiff will contend, that special damage is fully shown here, within the principle of the cases where an individual injury resulting from a public nuisance is deemed actionable, the wrong being merely public only so long as the law suffered in the particular case is no more than all members of the community suffer.

Upon these views, the plaintiff contends that the judgment of the court of appeals ought to be reversed. [p*247]

Opinions

Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the court. MARSHALL, C.J., Opinion of the Court Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the court.

The judgment brought up by this writ of error having been rendered by the court of a State, this tribunal can exercise no jurisdiction over it unless it be shown to come within the provisions of the 25th section of the Judiciary Act. The plaintiff in error contends that it comes within that clause in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution which inhibits the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. He insists that this amendment, being in favor of the liberty of the citizen, ought to be so construed as to restrain the legislative power of a state, as well as that of the United States. If this proposition be untrue, the court can take no jurisdiction of the cause.

The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty. The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and we think necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes.

If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the General Government, not as applicable to the States. In their several Constitutions, they have imposed such restrictions on their respective [p*248] governments, as their own wisdom suggested, such as they deemed most proper for themselves. It is a subject on which they judge exclusively, and with which others interfere no further than they are supposed to have a common interest.

The counsel for the plaintiff in error insists that the Constitution was intended to secure the people of the several States against the undue exercise of power by their respective State governments, as well as against that which might be attempted by their General Government. It support of this argument he relies on the inhibitions contained in the tenth section of the first article. We think that section affords a strong, if not a conclusive, argument in support of the opinion already indicated by the court. The preceding section contains restrictions which are obviously intended for the exclusive purpose of restraining the exercise of power by the departments of the General Government. Some of them use language applicable only to Congress, others are expressed in general terms. The third clause, for example, declares, that “no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.” No language can be more general, yet the demonstration is complete that it applies solely to the Government of the United States. In addition to the general arguments furnished by the instrument itself, some of which have been already suggested, the succeeding section, the avowed purpose of which is to restrain State legislation, contains in terms the very prohibition. It declares, that “no State shall pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law.” This provision, then, of the ninth section, however comprehensive its language, contains no restriction on State legislation.

The ninth section having enumerated, in the nature of a bill of rights, the limitations intended to be imposed on the powers of the General Government, the tenth proceeds to enumerate those which were to operate on the State legislatures. These restrictions are brought together in the same section, and are by express words applied to the States. “No State shall enter into any treaty,” &c. Perceiving, that in a constitution framed by the people of the United States, for the government of all, no limitation of the action of government on [p*249] the people would apply to the State government, unless expressed in terms, the restrictions contained in the tenth section are in direct words so applied to the States.

It is worthy of remark, too, that these inhibitions generally restrain State legislation on subjects intrusted to the General Government, or in which the people of all the States feel an interest. A State is forbidden to enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation. If these compacts are with foreign nations, they interfere with the treaty-making power, which is conferred entirely on the General Government; if with each other, for political purposes, they can scarcely fail to interfere with the general purpose and intent of the Constitution. To grant letters of marque and reprisal, would lead directly to war, the power of declaring which is expressly given to Congress. To coin money is also the exercise of a power conferred on Congress. It would be tedious to recapitulate the several limitations on the powers of the States which are contained in this section. They will be found generally to restrain State legislation on subjects intrusted to the government of the Union, in which the citizens of all the States are interested. In these alone were the whole people concerned. The question of their application to States is not left to construction. It is averred in positive words.

If the original Constitution, in the ninth and tenth sections of the first article, draws this plain and marked line of discrimination between the limitations it imposes on the powers of the General Government and on those of the State; if, in every inhibition intended to act on State power, words are employed which directly express that intent; some strong reason must be assigned for departing from this safe and judicious course in framing the amendments before that departure can be assumed. We search in vain for that reason.

Had the people of the several States, or any of them, required changes in their Constitutions, had they required additional safeguards to liberty from the apprehended encroachments of their particular governments, the remedy was in their own hands, and could have been applied by themselves. A [p*250] convention could have been assembled by the discontented State, and the required improvements could have been made by itself. The unwieldy and cumbrous machinery of procuring a recommendation from two-thirds of Congress and the assent of three-fourths of their sister States could never have occurred to any human being as a mode of doing that which might be effected by the State itself. Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the State governments, they would have imitated the framers of the original Constitution, and have expressed that intention. Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.

But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government — not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.

We are of opinion that the provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the [p*251] Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States. We are therefore of opinion that there is no repugnancy between the several acts of the general assembly of Maryland, given in evidence by the defendants at the trial of this cause, in the court of that State, and the Constitution of the United States. This court, therefore, has no jurisdiction of the cause, and it is dismissed.

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Court of Appeals for the Western Shore of the State of Maryland, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is the opinion of this Court that there is no repugnancy between the several acts of the General Assembly of Maryland given in evidence by the defendants at the trial of this cause in the court of that State and the Constitution of the United States; whereupon it is ordered and adjudged by this court that this writ of error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the want of jurisdiction.

===Part Two

The Bill of Rights Fraud

Part two

The following is gleaned from a book called Cases in Constitutional Law, last published 1967, Library of Congress Card 6818704, by Robert E and Robert F Cushman. It contains 159 cases and over 100 cases commented on or referred to in the 159 cases. The book is 1168 pages. The book tells you how the Bill of Rights was nationalized..

I conversed with a friend named Fred and wrote this to him concerning another patriot that debunked my findings when he would not let truth sink into his core beliefs. Since then he has capitulated and now sees it but it took him over 6 years to come to terms with the fraud, realizing it has been a fraud all along. All bold type in Part two is straight out of the Book. My comments are regular type.

{Hopefully after reading these two parts you will come to realize Spooner was right. The con job was just that, a con job of immense proportions. How the fraud lived so long is only due to the fact our family tree parents, going back to 1776/1787 were led by the nose as are the people of today. You have to have a core belief, and that, my friends is based on a lie. So as all foundations are either true or false, hopefully you will find what you have been brought up to believe is one huge fraud.

The Informer 11-3-06, Well now that I let off some steam, here is more on Barron. It wasn’t just as someone we know said that, the supreme court brought it up in 2001. They brought Barron up way before 2001. I have a constitutional law book Titled Cases in Constitutional Law. It is ripe with cases on Barron and many more in its 1168 pages of knowledge. There are cases that they did not bring up that are just as important, one being Hepburn and Dundas v Ellezy, 2 Cranch 445. The heading of the case states:}

“A citizen of the District of Columbia cannot maintain an action against a citizen of Virginia in the circuit court for the district of Virginia. A citizen of the District of Columbia is not a citizen of a state, within the meaning of the Constitution.”

{Reading this, it goes way over people’s heads and they are not aware. As Montgomery found out, that President Washington created the states as districts in 1791, hence the phrase “district of Virginia” in the above case. It is an important case and you must get it because it is ripe with info that will wipe out the myth that people have had on the jurisdiction. A passage in the case so states after the Court gets rid of the notion that the people of the states are on the same footing as the people of the District of Columbia and said the plaintiff could not sue in Virginia. This is the defense position statement.}

“Even if the Constitution of the United States authorizes a more enlarged jurisdiction that the Judiciary Act of 1789 has given, yet the court can take no jurisdiction which it is not given by the Act. I, therefore, call for the law which gives a jurisdiction in this case.”
.
{A response was given by Plaintiff to rebut the above statement. The court then gave it’s decision and sided with Defense when Chief Justice Marshall said,}

“The opinion to be certified to the circuit court is, that that court has no jurisdiction in the case.” {So basically the Judiciary Act of 1789 gives what jurisdiction the federal courts have}, NOT the Congress as so many people believe and as the Defense attorney said, if it’s not to be found (jurisdiction) in that Act the fed court does not have it. { Here we have direct admission that lawyers back then were dictating the parameters in which the courts had jurisdiction. The Informer, in his new history, brought this up when he cited the History of The American Bar by Charles Warren. I believe you have that book of the Informer. Might pay to reread it in light of this “revelation” the guy I was talking about had. Now back to Barron. In the notes of the Constitutional Cases (BOOK) printed 1968, it states.}

“While most rights in the Bill of Rights now do apply to the states, they do so only because they are essential to due process of law. The ruling in the present case that the Bill of Rights does not apply directly to the states has never been over ruled. ”{ Brown v Walker (1896) Barron was again broached on self incrimination case. The BOOK had his to say}; “In 1956 the Court reaffirmed the Brown decision in U1Imann v. United States . It rejected the defendant’s argument that “the impact of the disabilities imposed by federal and state authorities and the public in generalsuch as loss of ]ob, expulsion from labor unions, state registration and investigation statutes, passport eligibility, and general pubIic opprobriumis so oppressive that the statute does not give him true immunity.” The statute, like the Fifth Amendment provision, protects the witness only from having to give “testimony which may possibly expose him to a criminal charge.”

Since Congress need not grant immunity from state prosecution in order to compel testimony, the question arises whether it may do so if it wishes. The control over evidence admissible in state courts is traditionally a question of state power, and even the Supreme Court in administering the due process clause has been reluctant to interfere with this state prerogative. In Adams v. Maryland (1954) the Court held that Congress could, under the supremacy doctrine, forbid a state to use testimony given before a congressional committee. Adams had been summoned before the Senate Crimes Investigation (Kefauver) Committee and had bared his soul concerning his boob making activities. The state of Maryland , which had been unable to get other evidence against Adams , read the transcript of the committee hearing into the trial record as a confession, and he was convicted of illegal gambling. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction on the ground that 859 forbade the use of such testimony “in any criminal proceeding against him in any court …. “While Congress could not compel testimony under the statute, such testimony as was given was protected; and the phrase “in any court” included state courts as well as federal. Forbidding such use of the testimony) was held to be a necessary and proper way of securing testimony. The Immunity Act of 1954 uses this same language, and the Adams interpretation was reaffirmed by the Court in the Ullmann case.

In the present case a federal grand jury was investigating charges against a railroad that it had granted discriminatory rates and rebates. Brown, who was an officer of the railroad, was called as a witness but refused to answer certain questions on the ground that the answers would tend to accuse am incriminate him. He was adjudged in contempt for his refusal to answer.

Mr. Justice Brown delivered the opinion of the Court, saying in part; It is true that the Constitution does not operate upon a witness testifying in state courts , since we have held that the first eight amendments are limitations only upon the powers of Congress and the Federal courts, and are not applicable to the several states , except so far as the 14th Amendment may have made them applicable. Barron v. Baltimore

[1833] …. There is no such restriction, however, upon the applicability of Federal statutes ….[The Court here quotes the supremacy clause in Article VI.]

The act in question contains no suggestion that it is to be applied only to the Federal courts. It declares broadly that “no person shall be excused from attending and testifying . . . before the Interstate Commerce Commission . . . on the ground . . . that the testimony . . . required of him may tend to criminate him, etc. But no person shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he may testify,” etc. It is not that he shall not be prosecuted for or on account of any crime concerning which he may testify, which might possibly be urged to apply only to crimes under the Federal law…; but the immunity extends to any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he may testify, which clearly indicates that the immunity is intended to be general and to be applicable whenever and in whatever court such prosecution may be had. But even granting that there were still a bare possibility that by his disclosure he might be subjected to the criminal laws of some other sovereignty, Court here quotes the supremacy clause in Article VI.]

The act in question contains no suggestion that it is to be applied only to the Federal courts. It declares broadly that “no person shall be excused from attending and testifying . . . before the Interstate Commerce Commission . . . on the ground . . . that the testimony . . . required of him may tend to criminate him, etc. But no person shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he may testify,” etc. It is not that he shall not be prosecuted for or on account of any crime concerning which he may testify, which might possibly be urged to apply only to crimes under the Federal law…; but the immunity extends to any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he may testify, which clearly indicates that the immunity is intended to be general and to be applicable whenever and in whatever court such prosecution may be had.

But even granting that there were still a bare possibility that by his disclosure he might be subjected to the criminal laws of some other sovereignty, that . . . is not a real and probable danger, with reference to the ordinary operations of the law in the ordinary courts, but “a danger of an imaginary and unsubstantial character, having reference to some extraordinary and barely possible contingency, so improbable that no reasonable man would suffer it to influence his conduct.” Such dangers it was never the object of the provision to obviate.

The same answer may be made to the suggestion that the witness is imperfectly protected by reason of the fact that he may still be prosecuted and put to the annoyance and expense of pleading his immunity by way of confession and avoidance. This is a detriment which the law does not recognize. There is a possibility that any citizen, however innocent, may be subjected to a civil or criminal prosecution, and put to the expense of defending himself, but unless such prosecution be malicious, he is remediless, except so far as a recovery of costs may partially indemnify him . . . While the constitutional provision in question is justly regarded as one of the most valuable prerogatives of the citizen, its object is fully accomplished by the statutory immunity, and we are therefore of opinion that the witness was compellable to answer, and that the judgment of the court below must be affirmed.

Mr. Justice Shiras, with whom Mr. Justices Gray and White concurred, wrote a dissenting opinion. Mr. Justice Field wrote a separate dissent.”
In Powell v Alabama (1932) Barron was brought up again . Then in Palko v Connecticut (1937 Barron was again brought up and this is the BOOK’s comment .
With the decision in Powell v. Alabama it appeared that the long struggle to nationalize the Bill of Rights might at last be bearing fruit. The Court had acknowledged that it no longer felt bound by the Hurtado reasoning; the application to the states of the Fifth Amendment right to just compensation and the First Amendment rights of free speech, press, religion, and assembly showed that some of the Bill of Rights guarantees could be applied to the states through due process of law. And now, in Powell, the Court for the first time had found one of the rights of persons accused of crime to be essential to due process.

‘The Palko case, printed below, made clear that the Court was not prepared to abandon earlier decisions such as Hurtado and Twining. Instead, it undertook to explain why some rights, such as the rights to counsel and free speech, are absorbed into due process; and why others, like jury trial and grand jury indictment, are not. It should be emphasized that the cases “absorbing” rights into the Fourteenth Amendment do not overrule Barron v. Baltimore (1820). The provisions of the federal Bill of Rights still limit directly only the federal government; it is the Fourteenth Amendment which limits the states. What the Court has done is to reverse the practical effect of the rule in Barron v. Baltimore with respect to part, but not all, of the Bill of Rights. Some of these rights are still not considered by the Court to be so fundamental as to be required by due process of law . The Court in case after case has been classifying the provisions of the Bill of Rights into those which are essential to due process of law and thus bind the states through the operation of the Fourteenth Amendment and those which are not essential to due process and by which ‘the states are not bound. In effect, the Court has established an “honor roll” of superior rights which bind both state and national governments. The opinion in the present case is important since it gives an official summary of this classification up to 1937 and states clearly the principles upon which the ‘classification rests.

In another situation, and for a very different purpose, the Court classified the provisions of the federal Bill of Rights. In fixing the constitutional status of territories after the war with Spain, the Court held that in governing “unincorporated” territories, such as Puerto Rico and the Philippines, Congress was restricted only by those guarantees in the Bill of Rights which are basic and fundamental, and not by those which are merely “procedural” or “remedial,” such as the guarantee of trial by jury. See Balzac v. Porto Rico (1922). This classification is essentially the same as that in Palko v. Connecticut . One question which the Palko case failed to answer satisfactorily was what was meant by “absorption” or “incorporation” of a Bill of Rights guarantee into due process. Did it mean that the right, as listed in the Bill of Rights and interpreted by the Supreme Court in federal cases, was made applicable to the states? Or was the right as applied to the states a more general right, less clearly defined and permitting more leeway and discretion on the part of the states? Clearly, incorporation of the First Amendment has meant its application to the states exactly as it is applied to the national government.

Justices Brandeis and Holmes, in their dissent in the Gitlow case, suggested that the free speech applicable to the states perhaps “may be accepted with a somewhat larger latitude of interpretation than is allowed to Congress by the sweeping language that governs or ought to govern the laws of the United States .” The Court, however, has never acknowledged such a distinction, and the same rules for deciding such cases are applied to the states and the nation alike.

With the gradual extension of due process to include other rights, an important controversy developed as to how these rights would apply to the states. This problem is discussed in connection with the specific rights in the chapter below.” {Another case is United States v Lanza (1922). This is what the court stated then I will go to the BOOK comments and bear in mind what happened at the Ruby Ridge trial against the government agent and put into that what the BOOK states.} Chief Justice Taft delivered the opinion: “We have here two sovereignties, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subjectmatter within the same territory.

Each may, without interference by the other, enact laws to secure prohibition, with the limitation that no legislation can give validity to acts prohibited by the Amendment. Each government, in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity, is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other. It follows that an act denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offense against the peace and dignity of both, and may be punished by each. The 5th Amendment, like all the other guaranties in the first eight amendments, applies only to proceedings by the Federal government (Barron v. Baltimore [1833]) and the double jeopardy therein forbidden is a second prosecution under authority of the Federal government after a first trial for the same offense under the same authority. Here the same act was an offense against the state of Washington , because a violation of its law, and also an offense against the United States under the National Prohibition Act. The defendants thus committed two different offenses by the same act, and a conviction by a court of Washington of the offense against that state is not a conviction of the different offense against the United States, and so is not double jeopardy …

If Congress sees fit to bar prosecution by the Fedearl courts for any act when punishment for violation of state prohibition has been imposed, it can, of course, do so by proper legislative provision; but it has not done so. If a state were to punish the manufacture, transportation, and sale of intoxicating liquor by small or nominal fines, the race of offenders to the courts of that state to plead guilty and secure immunity from Federal prosecution for such acts would not make for respect for the Federal statute, or for its deterrent effect. But it is not for us to discuss the wisdom of legislation; it is enough for us to hold that, in the absence of special provision by Congress, conviction and punishment in a state court, under a state law, for making, transporting, and selling intoxicating liquors, is not a bar to a prosecution in a court of the United States, under the Federal law, for the same acts ….Judgment reversed.

Now for the comment by the BOOK:

It was one of the universal maxims of the common law that no man should be brought into jeopardy of his life more than once for the same offense. Protection against double jeopardy is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment against invasion by the federal government, while a similar clause is found in the bills of rights of most of the state constitutions. A person is held to be in jeopardy when his trial has progressed to the point where he actually confronts the jury. If convicted, he may waive his immunity from double jeopardy by an appeal to a higher court which may allow him a new trial; but if acquitted, further proceedings against him by the prosecuting authorities are barred, the government not even being allowed to appeal the case on the ground of error of law. See United States v. Sanges (1892). Moreover, if he appeals his conviction and is granted a new trial the defendant can only be retried on the charge of which he was convicted. Thus in Green v. United States (1957) a person who was indicted and tried for first degree murder but was found guilty by the jury of second degree murder could not, after successfully appealing the second degree murder charge, be retried on the original charge of first degree murder. He had already been once in jeopardy for that cr/me and had not waived his protection by appealing his conviction for a different crime.

In certain recognized circumstances a court can declare a mistrial and subject the accused to a second trial without violating the protection against double jeopardy. This is true where it turns out that a juror is disqualified, see Thompson v. United States (1894); and in United States v. Perez (1824) it was held permissible where the jury could not agree on a verdict; “The prisoner has not been convicted or acquitted, and may again be put upon his defense. We think, that in all cases of this nature, the law has invested courts of justice with the authority to discharge a jury from giving any verdict, whenever, in their opinion, taking all the circumstances into consideration, there is a manifest necessity for the act, or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated. They are to exercise a sound discretion on the subject; and it is impossible to define all the circumstances which would render it proper to interfere.” The double jeopardy clause would prevent declaring a mistrial and ordering a new trial solely to permit the government more time to secure evidence against the accused. In Downum v. United States (1963) the government asked that the jury be discharged when it discovered two of its key witnesses were missing. Two days later a new jury was empanelled and Downurn was convicted. The Court conceded that a new jury could be empanelled after the discharge of the first where there is “an imperious necessity to do so,” or in “very extraordinary and striking circumstances.” Here the government had simply started the trial before it had located all its witnesses.

A move such as this does not, however, amount to a denial of due process when done in a state court. In Brock v. North Carolina (1953) the state court had declared a mistrial and ordered a continuance of the case in order to permit the state to deal with some of its own witnesses who had unexpectedly refused to testify on pleas of selfincrimination.

Citing the Palko case, the Court held that the double jeopardy provision was not incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, and this particular action was not shocking enough to make the trial unfair. In 1967 the Court declined to decide whether or not the double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment would be extended to the states. Although it had granted certiorari to decide the question, on a full hearing of the case it agreed that the state action did not amount to double jeopardy and dismissed the writ as improvidently granted. See Cichos v. Indiana .

Since one is not in jeopardy until his trial actually begins, indictment for crime does not put a person in jeopardy, and therefore repeated indictments do not constitute double jeopardy. Moreover, the government can appeal the dismissal of an indictment, and such an appeal gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to pass upon the constitutionality of criminal legislation which a lower court holds unconstitutional. See discussion in the note to Muskrat v. United States .

It does not constitute double jeopardy to try a person each time he commits the same offense over again . Thus a conscientious objector who has sewed a prison sentence for refusing to register for the draft may be tried and convicted again if he continues in his refusal. The same is true of a person who is punished for contempt for refusing to give testimony. Where, however, a witness is asked to identify a person as a Communist and in reply refuses to so identify “anyone,” she is guilty of only one contempt, despite a refusal to answer the same question asked 11 times with regard to other persons. See Yates v; United States (1957). Where Congress has made conspiracy to commit a felony a separate crime from the commission of the felony itself, a person may be tried for both crimes. Whether the second trial constitutes double jeopardy in cases like this depends on the nature of the evidence needed to convict. The Court in Morgan v. Devine (1915) quoted with approval from Bishop on Criminal Law: “The test is whether, if what is set out in the second indictment had been proved under the first, there could have been a conviction; when there could, the second cannot be maintained; when there could not, it can be.”

One of the obvious results of living under our federal form of government is that every person is subject to the criminal jurisdiction of two separate governments, the state and the national. It is entirely possible, therefore, for a single act to constitute an offense against the statutes of the United States and at the same time to be punishable under state law. This is true in the case of counterfeiting the national currency, corrupt practices in the conduct of congressional elections, assaults against federal officers, the larceny of goods moving in interstate commerce, violations of the former Prohibition Amendment, etc. In these cases it has long been held that a person may be tried and punished by both governments without violating the protection against double jeopardy. That guarantee is violated only by a second trial for the same offense against the same sovereignty, not by a trial /or the same act when it constitutes a separate and distinct crime against another sovereign. This doctrine had, of course, considerable practical effect in connection with the enforcement of the Prohibition Amendment, under which concurrent jurisdiction rested in the state and national governments. Note the similarity of this rule to the one applied to the selfincrimination
cases.

In the present case Lanza had been convicted by the state courts of Washington for violating the state prohibition act. He was then indicted in a federal court for the same act, which also violated the Volstead Act. The district judge dismissed the indictment on the ground of double jeopardy and the government appealed. The Lanza rule, though sharply criticized, sti11 stands. Abbate v. United States (1959) held that a man convicted of a crime in Illinois could later be tried for the same act (dynamiting telephone communications) under a federal law. Lanza was specifically reaffirmed by a sixtothree decision. On the same day the Court held, five to four, that one acquitted in a federal court of robbing a federally insured bank could later be tried and convicted in a state court for the same robbery. See Bartkus v. Illinois (1959).

While the Lanza rule has a logical persuasiveness about it and the Court has done nothing to weaken it, it has not been given wide application. It is not, for example, followed in international law. As early as 1820 the Supreme Court recognized that while all states could try a person for piracy, “there can be no doubt that the plea of autrefois acquit would be good, in any civilized state, though resting on a prosecution in the courts of any other civilized state.” See United States v. Furlong. Nor has the Court felt the rule should apply in cases where two states have concurrent jurisdiction, as on the Columbia River where Washington and Oregon both have jurisdiction over the entire river so as “to avoid any nice question as to whether a criminal act sought to be prosecuted was committed on one side or the other of the exact boundary in the channel” “Where an act is . . . prohibited and punishable by the laws of both states,” the Court commented, “the one first acquiring jurisdiction of the person may prosecute the offense, and its judgment is a finality in both states, so that one convicted or acquitted in the courts of the one state cannot be prosecuted for the same offense in the courts of the other.” See Nielson v. Oregon (1909).

The manifest unfairness of the Lanza rule has been widely recognized, and following the Abbate and Bartkus decisions the Attorney General of the United States ordered that “no federal case should be tried when there has already been a state prosecution for substantially the same act or acts without the United States Attorney first submitting a recommendation to the appropriate Assistant Attorney General in the Department.” And in Petite v. United States (1960) Petite, a lawyer in deportation proceedings against the same man held in both Philadelphia and Baltimore, induced his client to swear falsely that he had been born in the United States. For this suborning of perjury he was convicted and punished in the federal district court in Pennsylvania , and later in the federal district court in Maryland . When the case came to the Supreme Court the Solicitor General moved that the second judgment be vacated and the indictment dismissed. He contended that the double jeopardy clause had not been violated, but stated that “the initiation of the second prosecution in this case was contrary to sound policy and that for that reason, and in the interests of justice, the indictment should be dismissed.” The Supreme Court, without passing on the double jeopardy question, granted the motion.”

So there is the story. Now I think this fellow I was talking about has a lot of cognitive dissonance and ego to get rid of and it just might take him more than 3
months to understand. After all, I would say he is at least 12 years behind the Informer’s knowledge. Well, once he obtains the level of competence that we have obtained then he is on to better things and won’t be so ego centered. It is nice to be eating humble pie once in awhile. I think everyone has a lot to learn from reading this and the cases if they so choose. But they need interpretation like this BOOK gives, because after all it’s what “they” interpret as ruling , not us. We are only slaves remember

CITIZEN EQUALS SUBJECT

March 6, 2012

CITIZEN = SUBJECT

AMERICAN = ENGLAND By The Informer

Before getting into the case at hand you MUST understand a little known concept in English writing and the legal term and use of certain words by the court. Failure to understand will result in a poor reading of the case. And, in fact all other cases you read. That is why there is so much misunderstanding amongst people when they read a case. I can read a case and get an entirely different set of facts that most all people do not see. Most people are after a specific thing in a case to prove a point and miss a lot of good material. Commas are a very important piece of understanding a sentence.

COMMA.n. A segment, to cut off. In writing and printing, this point [,]denoting the shortest pause in reading, and separating a sentence into divisions or members, according to the construction. Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary RULES OF PUNCTUATIONCOMMAS THAT SET OFF.

4.1.1 Commas usually set off words, phrases, and other sentence elements that are parenthetical or independent. Items of this sort are contrasting expressions. 4.1.2 Commas usually set off appositional or modify words, phrases, or clauses that do not limit or restrict the main idea of a sentence. 4.2.2 Whenever in spoken English there is an enumeration of items, a rising or sustained pause separate and distinguishes each member of a series. In writing, a comma likewise separates words, phrases or clauses that occur in a series. 4.4.2 It is equally important to insert a comma to prevent misreading or ambiguity.

WEBSTER’S SEVENTH COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY, 1970 PUNCTUATION

So you can see just how important commas are and where they are placed in a sentence. You may want to refer to this when reading the case. Now we come to an all important word that when in law means something entirely different than what you think it means and the courts are well aware of this when they read legal briefs or write determinations. Something the average writ writer has no clue as to how he is using the word. That word is the simple word “OR”. Did you know that the word OR means AND unless a specific word is used in conjunction with it Now we come to an all important word that when in law means something entirely different than what you think it means and the courts are well aware of this when they read legal briefs or write determinations. Something the average writ writer has no clue as to how he is using the word. That word is the simple word “OR”. Did you know that the word OR means AND unless a specific word is used in conjunction with it in LAW?

Standard definition Webster’s Dictionary. OR. Conj.. Used as a function word to indicate an alternative.

So it is a conjunction. CONJUNCTION. The state of being conjoined? occurrence together in time or space? connective. Therefore, it can mean the word on either side of “or” are one and the same. Ballentine’s Law Dictionary 3rd edition. 1969 OR. A conjunction normally in the disjunctive. A conjunction properly used with “either” in stating a proposition in the alternative. BLACK’S LAW 4th ED OR, conj.. A disjunctive particle used to express an alternative or to give a choice of one among two or more things. It is also used to clarify what has already been said, and in such cases, means ‘in other words,’ ‘to wit,’ or ‘that is to say.’ Or is frequently misused? and courts will construe it to mean ‘and’ where it is so used. However, where the word ‘or’ is preceded by the word ‘either,’ it is never given a conjunctive meaning.

Now you are going to see how important that little word is, as well as the comma. Here I just gave you a prime example that the comma in the preceding sentence separated two independent things, word and comma. Look at punctuation rule 4.2.2 and 4.4.2. Apply it to all other law and you will be shocked that you have probably misread or misconstrued every law and case that you have seen. Now I have given you a second example in the preceding sentence where I used the word OR to mean AND. Since I did not use the word either in the sentence the word misread, OR means AND. And you wonder why these kids from age 35 back to age 18 have no concept of what they read and can’t understand a thing about the world today when it comes to a simple contract? And you wonder why I and only a few other researchers see what you don’t see in law or court cases and say we are wrong because you don’t understand punctuation or the word Or means AND?

Hopefully I will not have to explain after you read the case. You will pick up on the fact that the term citizen of the United States was used well before the 14th Amendment was ever adopted, like pre 1824. You will see that the word ‘either’ NEVER appears in the decision. However you will see the word ‘neither’ used twice. Remember sentence construction from 6th grade where the “neither nor” rule applied like the “either or rule?” How many remember being taught that like I was? You will see that citizen subject is one in the same and is what I have been saying since 1990. So you are not and never were a sovereign. Also you will see that they, the sovereigns, your rulers, can naturalize every man woman and child when an area joins the Union in one fell swoop. The people did not join the Union as only fictions called States can join the Union.

This case shows where one can be a subject (citizen) of a state and still not be a citizen of the United States despite the 14th Amendment. All the see that they, the sovereigns, your rulers, can naturalize every man woman and child when an area joins the Union in one fell swoop. The people did not join the Union as only fictions called States can join the Union.

This case shows where one can be a subject (citizen) of a state and still not be a citizen of the United States despite the 14th Amendment. All the 14th did was to put all under the military rule and was designed for corporations as evidenced by the fact the first time it was used to defend a black man was in the early 1930′s. Come on now, from 1868 to 1933 that no case ever used it for a man, either white or black, should tell you something. In here you will see that those sovereigns give subjects (citizen) only privileges and it is considered a GIFT. Yes you will catch it when reading. Keep searching for the word RIGHTS as you read the case.

Are they natural or conferred? Also, if all the socalled “Christians” use the definition as a follower of “Christ,” then they are not “Christians.” When you read what you have to give up to become a SUBJECT (citizen) of another sovereign and renounce all allegiance, I dare say we have no “Christians” in America whatsoever, save a very, very, few. It is all hype as they are all fence sitters. And they wonder why the Lord Almighty doesn’t come down and clean the mess up? Because they are a big part of the mess. Look how many call themselves citizens of the United States or a citizen of the political subdivision of the corporate United States, namely a State? Look for the dates April 14, 1802 & March 3, 1863, (12 Stat. 731,) and see what they declared way before the 14th Amendment. Yes dear reader, read this case well especially since I highlighted those words and punctuation for clarity. Now after reading this, do you think all those tons of cases you read have to be reread because the courts are not taking them with any seriousness because you misread them? I wonder what they really said in all those cases? Especially since after reading this case you will immediately see where you placed yourself, by claiming the Constitution is yours. And you probably said, I took an oath to defend it, even though it is not protecting me like I thought it said and by golly, as a citizen of this great state of the Union I am not a United States citizen, even though I voted either for or against Clinton. Now look what the court stated it had claiming jurisdiction over this alien because of what he did, not whom he said he was. Make sure you find the word “contract” in the decision. Every time you see “or” replace it with “AND”. As I have said all along, especially in my New History of America, we are nothing but slaves on the Plantation, never were the sovereigns you thought you were, and have no control over any State officer of the corporation although they like you to think you do. The Constitution they speak of is all rhetoric and meaningless. Plantation does not mean a farm either. So with all this knowledge of English and punctuation lets read what I scanned.

THE FEDERAL REPORTER. VOLUME 56. CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AND CIRCUIT AND .DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES. PERMANENT EDITION, JULY OCTOBER, 1893, AND .DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES. PERMANENT EDITION, JULY OCTOBER, 1893, WITH TABLES OF FEDERAL REPORTER CASES PUBLISHED IN VOLS. 3, C. C. A. REPORTS? 4, U.S. APPEALS REPORTS A TABLE OF STATUTES CITED AND CONSTRUED IS GIVEN IN THE INDEX ST. PAUL: WEST PUBLISHING CO. 1893. Pg 576 FEDERAL REPORTER, vol 56. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS v. REUM. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. May 29, 1893.) No. 211 1. ALIENSWho Are EFFEC’T OF STATE LAWS.

A foreignborn resident of the United States, who has merely declared his intention to become a citizen, but has never complied with any other provision of the naturalization laws, is none the less an alien because of the fact that the constitution and laws of Minnesota, wherein he resides, have conferred the elective franchise and other privileges of citizenship on foreign subjects who have declared their intention to be naturalized, and that he has actually voted for member of congress and state and county officers. 2. SAMENaturalization Laws.

Nor is his status altered by reason of the fact that, when he so declared his intention, he was entitled, by reason of length of residence, to be naturalized, under Rev. St. § 2167, for that section merely dispenses with the twoyear delay between the declaration of intention and the actual admission to citizenship which is prescribed by section 2165. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota. Affirmed. Statement by SANBORN, Circuit Judge: On October 7, 1891, Frederick Reum, the defendant in error, brought this action against the city of Minneapolis, the plaintiff in error, for a personal Injury that resulted from its negligence. He recovered Judgment, to reverse which this writ of error was sued out. In his complaint he alleged that he was an alien, and a subject of the King of Saxony, and this allegation was denied by the defendant. The evidence disclosed these facts: The plaintiff was born in the kingdom of ‘Saxony in 1859. His father and mother were natives of that kingdom, and the former resided there until he died, in the Infancy of the plaintiff. In 1863, after his father’s death, the Plaintiff and his mother came to the state of Minnesota, where they have since resided. In 1885 he was married, and has since that time owned and occupied a farm in that state. On October 25, 189O, he made a declaration of his Intention to become a citizen of the United States in the circuit court for the district of Minnesota? but he has never been admitted, or applied to be admitted, to citizenship under the second and third paragraphs of .section 2165 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, or under any provisions of the acts of congress. The was married, and has since that time owned and occupied a farm in that state. On October 25, 189O, he made a declaration of his Intention to become a citizen of the United States in the circuit court for the district of Minnesota? but he has never been admitted, or applied to be admitted, to citizenship under the second and third paragraphs of .section 2165 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, or under any provisions of the acts of congress. The state of Minnesota has conferred upon all foreign subjects resident within its borders who have declared their intention to become citizens the elective franchise, the privilege of holding any office within its gift, and practically all of the privileges of citizenship in the power of that state to confer. In November 1890, the plaintiff voted for a member of congress and for state and county officers in Minnesota. At the close of the evidence the defendant moved the court to dismiss the action for want of Jurisdiction, on the ground that the evidence failed to establish the allegation that the plaintiff was an alien. The court denied the motion, and this ruling is the supposed error assigned. David F. Simpson, (Robert D. Russell, on the brief,) for plaintiff in error.

John W. Aretander, for defendant in error. Before CALDWELL and SANBORN, Circuit Judges, and THAYER, District Judge.

SANBORN, Circuit Judge, (after stating the facts as above.) In Lanz v. Randall, 4 Dill. 425, Mr. Justice Miller, who was then presiding in the circuit court for the district of Minnesota, held that a state could not make the subject of a foreign government a citizen of the United States, and that a resident of Minnesota who was born a subject of the grand duke of Mecklenburg, had declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States many years before he brought his suit, had resided in the state of Minnesota for 15 years, had several times voted at elections held in that state where the constitution of the state authorizes such residents to do so without naturalization, but had never applied to be or been admitted to citizenship under the federal naturalization laws, was still an alien, and a subject of the grand duke of Mecklenburg. This decision has been followed by the courts, and acquiesced in by the profession. It is now vigorously challenged by counsel for plaintiff in error.

Section 2, art. 3. of the Constitution of the United states, provides that the judicial power of the nation shall extend to “controversies between a state or the citizens thereof and foreign states, citizens, or subjects?” and the acts of Congress of March 3, 1887, (24 Stat.552,) and of August 13, 1888, (25 Stat. 433,) confer jurisdiction of all these controversies in cases involving over $2,000 upon the circuit courts. Every person at his birth is presumptively a citizen or subject of the state of his nativity, and where, as in the case at bar, his parents were then both subjects of that state, the presumption is conclusive. To the land of his birth he owes support and allegiance, and from it he is entitled to the civil and political rights and privileges of a citizen or subject. This relation, imposed by birth, is presumed to continue until a change of nationality is proved. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 167? Vatt. Law Nat. p. 101? Morse, Nat. 61, 125. A change of nationality cannot be made by the individual at will. Each nation has the right to refuse to grant the rights and privileges of citizenship to all persons not born upon its soil, and, if it determines to admit them to those rights and privileges, it may fix the terms on which they shall be conferred upon them. Naturalization is the admission of a foreign subject or citizen into the political body of a nation, and the bestowal upon him of the quality of a citizen or subject.

The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” As the shall be conferred upon them. Naturalization is the admission of a foreign subject or citizen into the political body of a nation, and the bestowal upon him of the quality of a citizen or subject.

The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” As the plaintiff was born in the kingdom of Saxony, of parents who at the time of his birth were subjects of the king of Saxony, he is not a citizen of the United States unless he has been naturalized therein. The United States, in the exercise of their undoubted right, have prescribed the conditions upon compliance with which an alien may become a citizen of this nation. The act of Congress of April 14, 1802, (2 Stat. 153, c. 28, § 1? Rev. St. § 2165,) provides that “an alien may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States in the following manner, and not otherwise. First. He shall, two Years at least prior to his admission, declare before a proper court his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce his allegiance to the potentate or sovereignty of which he may be at the time a citizen or subject. Second. He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare, on oath, before some one of the courts above specified, that he will support the Constitution of the United States, and that he absolutely and entirely renounces and abjures all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty? and particularly, by name, to the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of which he was before a citizen or subject, which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court. Third. It shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court admitting such alien that he has resided within the United States five years at least, and within the state or territory where such court is at the time held one year at least and that during that time he has behaved as a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same? but the oath of the applicant shall in no case be allowed to prove his residence.”

By the act of May 26, 1824, (4: star. 69, c. 186, § 1? Rev. St. § 2167,) it is provided that: “Any alien, being under the age of twentyone years, who has resided In the United States three years next preceding his arriving, at that age, and who has continued to reside therein to the time he may make application to be admitted a citizen thereof, may, after he arrives at the age of twentyone years, and after he has resided five years within the United States, including the three years of his minority, be admitted a citizen of the United States, without having made the declaration required in the first condition of section twentyone hundred and sixtyfive? but such alien shall make the declaration required therein at the time of his admission, and shall further declare on oath, and prove to the satisfaction of the court, that, for two years next preceding, it has been his bona fide intention to become a citizen of the United States? and he shall in all other respects comply with the laws in regard to naturalization.

There is no other provision of the acts of congress under which this plaintiff could have been naturalized. The counsel for plaintiff in error, however, alleges that he became a citizen of the United States (1).because at the time he declared his intention to do so he might have been admitted to citizenship, under the provisions of section 2167? (2) because various acts of congress have conferred certain privileges, and some have conferred all the privileges, of a citizen upon foreignborn residents who had declared their intention to become citizens? and (3) because the state of Minnesota has granted to such residents practically all the privileges of
citizenship in its power to bestow.

Before this plaintiff could become a naturalized citizen, the contract of allegiance and protection that the relation of a citizen to his nation implies certain privileges, and some have conferred all the privileges, of a citizen upon foreignborn residents who had declared their intention to become citizens? and (3) because the state of Minnesota has granted to such residents practically all the privileges of citizenship in its power to bestow. Before this plaintiff could become a naturalized citizen, the contract of allegiance and protection that the relation of a citizen to his nation implies must be made between him and the United States. The United States have prescribed the conditions under which such an alien may make this contract, the place where, and the manner in which, it shall be made, and have declared that it can be made on those conditions, and in that manner, and not otherwise. Rev. St. § 2165. The conditions are that he shall declare on oath, that he will support the Constitution? that he does renounce all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, and particularly to that one of which he was a subject? that it shall be made to appear to the court that he has resided in the United States five years, and in the state where the court is held one year? that he has behaved as a man of good moral character during all of this time, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same. The place where these conditions must be complied with is in one of the courts of record named in the acts of Congress, and the method by which the contract is to be made is by plenary proof to that court of a compliance with these conditions, which must be evidenced by its judgment. The plaintiff has complied with none of these terms. He has not even applied to any court to be admitted to citizenship. He has not consented to become a citizen of the United States on the terms they offer to him, or on any terms, but he still insists he is not a citizen, and that he is still a subject of the king of Saxony.

On the other hand, the United States have not consented to accept the plaintiff as a citizen, on any terms, much less to waive all the essential conditions without a compliance with which Congress has declared an alien cannot be naturalized. The minds of both parties must meet to make a contract, and, where neither party consents, there can surely be no agreement.

That the plaintiff, on October 25, 1890, had resided in Minnesota, as boy and man, long enough to qualify him to become a citizen under section 2167, is not material. The conclusive answer to the argument here urged is that the declaration of an intention to enter into a new relation for whom parties are qualified does not establish the relation. A man and woman who declare their intention to be married at some future time do not thereby become husband and wife. On the other hand, a declaration of intention to enter into a relation or to do an act at some future time is very persuasive evidence that the relation was not entered upon, and the act was not done, at the time the declaration was made. It must be borne in mind that the only effect of section 2167 was to relieve the plaintiff from waiting two years after filing his declaration before being admitted to citizenship. That section expressly provides that in all other respects he shall comply with the laws in regard to naturalization. The plaintiff’s declaration on October 25, 1890, when he was qualified to be naturalized, that he intended at some future time to become a citizen, coupled with the fact that he did not then apply to be admitted to citizenship, nor comply with any of the conditions prescribed by law for his naturalization, compels the conclusion that he did not then denationalize himself, but that he still remained a foreign subject. That Congress, in various acts, has conferred certain privileges and imposed certain burdens upon “persons of’ foreign birth who shall have declared their intention to become citizens,” at the same time that it conferred like privileges or imposed like burdens upon our own citizens, as in the act of March 3, 1863, (12 Stat. 731,) where all ablebodied male citizens of the United States, and “persons of foreign birth who shall have declared their intention to become citizens under and in pursuance of the laws thereof,” between certain ages, burdens upon “persons of’ foreign birth who shall have declared their intention to become citizens,” at the same time that it conferred like privileges or imposed like burdens upon our own citizens, as in the act of March 3, 1863, (12 Stat. 731,) where all ablebodied male citizens of the United States, and “persons of foreign birth who shall have declared their intention to become citizens under and in pursuance of the laws thereof,” between certain ages, are declared to constitute the national forces, and as in the patent laws, (Rev. St. § 4904,) the preemption laws, (Id. § 2259,) and in the mining laws, (Id. § ,2289,) where certain privileges are conferred on citizens of the United States, and “those who have declared their intention to become such,” in no way militates against, but strongly supports, the correctness of our conclusion, because, if foreignborn residents, by declaring their intention to become citizens, could ipso facto become such, it would have been futile to name them in all of these acts as a class distinct from our citizens. That Congress has, by various special acts, many of which are referred to in the opinion of Chief Justice Fuller in Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U.S. 158, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 375, naturalized certain classes of persons who had not complied with the terms of the general laws on this subject, is not important here, because the plaintiff is not a member of any class thus naturalized. Nor is the decision in Boyd v. Nebraska, supra, in point in this case because Gov. Boyd was there held to be one of a class of foreignborn residents that was naturalized by the acts of Congress admitting the state of Nebraska into the Union. These acts conferred the rights of citizenship upon foreignborn residents of Nebraska who had declared their intention to become citizens. The plaintiff was a resident of Minnesota.

A single argument remains to be noticed, and that is that the state of Minnesota has conferred on plaintiff the elective franchise, the right to hold any office in its gift, and, in reality, all the rights and privileges of citizenship in its power to bestow? and therefore it is said he is a citizen of that state, and not a foreign subject, and the federal court has no jurisdiction of this action. It may be conceded that a state may confer on foreign citizens or subjects all the rights and privileges it has the power to bestow, but, when it has done all this, it has not naturalized them. They are foreign citizens or subjects still, within the meaning of the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the jurisdiction of the federal courts over controversies between them and citizens of the states is neither enlarged nor restricted by the acts of the state. The power to naturalize foreign subjects or citizens was one of the powers expressly granted by the states to the national government. By section 8, art. 1, of the constitution of the United States, it was provided that “the congress shall have the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”

Congress has exercised this power, established the rule, and expressly declared that foreignborn residents may be naturalized by a compliance with it, and not otherwise. This power, like the power to regulate commerce among the states, was carved out of the general sovereign power held by the states when this nation was formed and granted by the Constitution to the Congress of the United States. It thus vested exclusively in Congress, and no power remained in the states to change or vary the rule of naturalization Congress established, or to authorize any foreign subject to denationalize himself, and become a citizen of the United States, without a compliance with the conditions congress had prescribed. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 405? Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73? Minor v. Happersett, 21 How. 162? Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135, 160, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 375, In like manner, the states granted to the judiciary of the nation the power to determine a controversy between a state or citizens thereof and foreign states, citizens, or subjects, (Const. U.S. art. 3, § 2,) and Congress conferred that power upon the circuit courts. The extent of the jurisdiction of those courts is measured by the Constitution and the 162? Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135, 160, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 375, In like manner, the states granted to the judiciary of the nation the power to determine a controversy between a state or citizens thereof and foreign states, citizens, or subjects, (Const. U.S. art. 3, § 2,) and Congress conferred that power upon the circuit courts. The extent of the jurisdiction of those courts is measured by the Constitution and the acts of Congress. A foreignborn resident, who has not been naturalized according to the acts of Congress, is not a “citizen” of the United States or of a state, within the definition given by the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution, but remains a foreign subject or citizen? and any controversy between him and a citizen of a state which involves a sufficient amount is thus clearly within the jurisdiction of the circuit courts, under any fair construction of the Constitution and laws of the United States. The jurisdiction thus conferred it is not in the power of any state, by its legislative or other action, to take away, restrict, or enlarge, and the action of the state of Minnesota regarding the citizenship of the plaintiff was not material in this case. Toland v. Sprague, 12 Pet. 300, 328? Cowless v. Mercer Co. 7 Wall. 118? Railway Co. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270, 286? Phelps v. Oaks, 117 U.S. 236, 239? 6 Sup. Or. Rep. 714? O’Connell v. Reed, 56 Fed. Rep. 531.

The result is that the power granted to Congress by Article 1, § 8, of the Constitution of the United States, to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, is exclusive? and the naturalization laws enacted by Congress in the exercise of this power constitute the only rule by which a foreign subject may become a citizen of the United States or of a state, within the meaning of the federal Constitution and laws. It is not in the power of a state to denationalize a foreign subject who has not complied with the federal naturalization laws, and constitute him a citizen of the United States or of a state, so as to deprive the federal courts of jurisdiction over a controversy between him and a citizen of a state, conferred upon them by article 3, § 2, of the constitution of the United States, and the acts of Congress. A foreign subject who is qualified to become a citizen of the United States, under section 2167 of the Revised Statutes, does not become such by filing his declaration of intention so to do. That section requires that he shall renounce allegiance to the sovereignty of which he is a subject, take the oath of allegiance to the United States, and comply with the other conditions prescribed in the second and third paragraphs of section 2165 of the Revised Statutes, in order to become naturalized? and until he does so he remains a foreign subject.

The court below was right in denying the motion to dismiss this action for want of jurisdiction, and the judgment below is affirmed, with costs. Well I hoped you learned something from reading this case with the correct understand of punctuation and the word OR. Karl Granse gave me this case when we were researching citizenship way back in ‘93 or so. I just decided to dig this out when I saw this type argument posted on the internet the first week in February that was close to this. Wow, just think, the word “either” never appeared once in the decision therefore every time the word “OR” was used it is a conjunction meaning AND. Since all citizens of the United States have renounced allegiance to the Sovereign Lord Almighty and given up His citizenship, Eph. 2:19, for another king/sovereign they are neither Christians for they gave up following the Lord nor sovereign with any unalienable rights, only conferred rights by the political establishment. It is that simple. Notice that nowhere were The Lord’s unalienable Rights ever mentioned, only conferred political Rights which are always inferior to Natural rights and is the only reason the country runs, on political rights. Ever hear either the term “politically correct” or “this court cannot decide your tax case argument because it is a `political issue’?”

is that simple. Notice that nowhere were The Lord’s unalienable Rights ever mentioned, only conferred political Rights which are always inferior to Natural rights and is the only reason the country runs, on political rights. Ever hear either the term “politically correct” or “this court cannot decide your tax case argument because it is a `political issue’?”

Nothing is an unalienable right because the Crown’s corporation of England still rules American “citizens” as it did its “subjects” in England. Only the term changed, i.e. we still are slaves to the feudal (federal) system.

Sincerely,
The Informer

No one has ever been a US citizen BY LAW of STATUTE

March 4, 2012

But when they register to vote they are, AND, by Presumption ONLY on the part of the corporation. All courts are private as stated in my Which One Are you book. published 20 years ago, On page 119. All agencies are Private corporations. All law is based on Presumption. I am giving this to you as I speak. This is now November 10th 2011. What do I mean by Presumption? The law of contracts is by presumption and the corporations use it all the time .Who are these corporations? The UNITED STATES and all 50 STATES. Why do they all appear in caps? Because artificial corporations have to use all caps in their name. Check out your STATES Secretary of STATE’S UCC Section. When corporations are registered to do business. All have to have their names in capital letters. That is why they have tagged you a US Citizen . By presumption on their part, you are their subject, as you are now deemed by them, to be a person. By presumption. Let’s look at that word Presumption.. You, reading this, have no clue what it really means. now look that word up in Webster’s 1828 dictionary even though I put it here. I could be lying to you just like the corporation UNITED STATES does.

1828 Definition

PRESUMP’TION, n. [L. proesumption.]

1. Supposition of the truth or real existence of something without direct or positive proof of the fact, but grounded on circumstantial or probable evidence which entitles it to belief. Presumption in law is of three sorts, violent or strong, probable, and light.

WHAT is the very first word defining PRESUMPTION? So look that up. I am teaching you how a professional researcher looks at things. You have to, to get what I got in 1998. So we go back to Webster’s SUPPOSI’TION, n. The act of laying down, imagining or admitting as true or existing, what is known not to be true, or what is not proved. How many times has IRS used this PRESUMPTION AND SUPPOSITION in letters to you or the court used it on you?

1. The position of something known not to be true or not proved; hypothesis.

This is only an infallibility upon supposition that if a thing be true, it is impossible to be false.
2. Imagination; belief without full evidence.

1913 Definition Supposition (supposition) n. (?)

Sup`po*si”tion

[F. supposition, L. suppositio a placing under, a substitution, fr. supponere, suppositium, to put under, to substitute. The word has the meaning corresponding to suppose. See Sub-, and Position.]

The act of supposing, laying down, imagining, or considering as true or existing, what is known not to be true, or what is not proved. Let’s suppose john doe is a taxpayer when he is not. Let’s suppose John Doe is a drug user. DO YOU SEE HOW PRESUMPTION WORKS WITH SUPPOSITION; That which is supposed; hypothesis; conjecture; surmise; opinion or belief without sufficient evidence.

This is only an infallibility upon supposition that if a thing be true, it is impossible to be false. Tillotson.

So how can you break the Presumption YOU are NOT a US Citizen turned PERSON , INDIVIDUAL in TAX LAW. The ARTIFICIAL ENTITY? BY doing something constructive for once in your life instead if griping all the time? You want to be Free? Then YOU are the only one able to do it. I can’t, an attorney won’t if they could. Your best friend can’t, only you can. How? By simply going back a couple of hundred years Not 20 50 0r 100 years. Back to the time these commercial corporations of STATES and UNITED STATES were formed. So we find a statute at large or a case using the statute at large. FOLKS this is not jumping out and saying HERE I AM. Freedom is never Free, when you have corporate criminals claiming by PRESUMPTION, THEY OWN YOU. YOU ARE A PERSON and the corporation statute says ALL PERSONS LIABLE, AND BY PRESUMPTION YOU ARE A PERSON AS A UNITED STATES citizen.

Well how can you prove you Are not a US citizen? Pretty hard is it not? Has anyone ever beat the PRESUMPTION, as I have in 1998, that you really have evidence of that?

WELL LET’S SEE WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT The Statute at large to become a US citizen is The act of Congress of April 14, 1802, (2 Stat. 153, c. 28, § 1; Rev. St. § 2165,. YOU MEAN YOU NEVER WENT BACK THAT FAR? WHY? DON”T YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHAT THEY DID to SCREW YOU ROYALLY OUT OF YOUR FREEDOMS FOR LIFE?

THAT ACT SAYS, and PAY ATTENTION; provides that “an alien may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States in the following manner, and not otherwise.” DO YOU understand what NOT OTHERWISE MEANS? OF COURSE YOU DON”T. 4th grade mentality can’t understand. This is what the corporation’s education system has done to every PERSON in AMERICA. YOU ARE A PERSON because you pay taxes don’t you ? You have a DL right? VOTE right? Have a birth certificate? Do everything the corporation tells you right? WRONG, THESE DO NOT MAKE YOU A SUBJECT. Well I found a case that will knock These preconceived ideas for a loop that if not heeded will keep you a subject of the corporation for the rest of your life and your kids’ and their kids’ lives.

The case is an 1893 called CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS v. REUM. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. May 29, 1893.) NOW I SAID PAY ATTENTION. TO WHAT? OF COURSE DUMMY THE RED WORDS “AND NOT OTHERWISE”. JUST because you voted DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE A US CITIZEN OR GOT ANY LATCHES, FILING TAX FORMS, GETTING LICENSES, ETC., ETC, BIRTH CERTIFICATES ARE ALL IN THE CATEGORY OF “AND NOT OTHERWISE.” See, you have to pay attention. The case where Mr. Reum actually voted was not germane, said the court. Even though he voted, it did NOT make him a citizen. Mr. Reum went back and forth—I am, I ain’t—so many times, the court ruled against him. He had not signed his self away from his king and was not entitled to be a NATURALIZED US citizen. Sure he registered to vote and did vote So the court said the Statute stated you had to do three things to become a US citizen. HAVE YOU DONE ANY after reading what the court said, the statute at large said? I Now quote the court and I know you will not pay attention so I will put in red what you will gloss over and never give it a thought.

The process was clearly stated as conclusions of law by the Court. The Court went on to state three factors whereby YOU needed to comply to become a U.S. Citizen and “NOT OTHERWISE”. They are, quoting the court; “FIRST. He shall, two Years at least prior to his admission, declare before a proper court his intention to become a citizen of the United States, (Mr. Reum did this) and to renounce his allegiance to the potentate or sovereignty of which he may be at the time a citizen or subject. ( Mr. Reum did NOT do this) SECOND. He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare, on oath, before some one of the courts above specified, that he will support the Constitution of the United States, and that he absolutely and entirely renounces and abjures all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty; and particularly, by name, to the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of which he was before a citizen or subject, which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court. THIRD. It shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court admitting such alien that he has resided within the United States five years at least, and within the state or territory where such court is at the time held one year at least and that during that time he has behaved as a MAN of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; but the oath of the applicant shall in no case be allowed to prove his residence.” Emphasis mine Note: They said “MAN” not person as today’s corporate R.I.C.O. statues do not mention MAN.

This statute was only amended once. By the act of May 26, 1824, (4: star. 69, c. 186, § 1; Rev. St. § 2167,) it removed the two year limit that (2 Stat. 153, c. 28, § 1; Rev. St. § 2165 provided. The TERM of their law for Man is NONRESIDENT ALIEN. This is correct but they used this term , knowing everyone would say “ I ain’t no Alien.” Thereby Negating the very thing that would make them free.

This maxim of law that apply is “expressio unius est exclusio alterius.” Are all statutes either comprising man or person? MAN is devoid of Statute. Non resident alien , A.K.A. MAN, is mentioned and excluded in statute because he is the TERM non resident Alien. Meaning Not resident in any contract, therefor Alien to the Constitution, policy regs etc., just as Whiting, The solicitor general stated in 1864 “An alien owes no allegiance or obedience to our government, or to our constitution, laws, or proclamations. . A citizen subject is bound to obey them all. In refusing such obedience, he is guilty of crime against his country, and finds in the law of nations no justification for disobedience. An alien, being under no such obligation, is justified in refusing such obedience. Over an alien enemy, our government can make no constitution, law, or proclamation of obligatory force, because our laws bind only our own subjects, and have no extra-territorial jurisdiction.

Over citizens who are subjects of this government, even if they have so far repudiated their duties as to become enemies, our constitution, statutes, and proclamations are the supreme law of the land. . The fact that their enforcement is resisted does not make them void. It is not in the power of armed subjects of the Union to repeal or legally nullify our constitution, laws, or other governmental acts.”

SOURCE: The Legal Classics Library War Powers under The Constitution of the United States 1864 tenth Ed Entered by Act of Congress In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts Special Edition 1997. REMEMBER WE WERE SUBJECTS BEFORE THE 1776 WAR WE LOST and became citizen SUBJECTS AFTER the 1783 peace treaty where the King Dictated to the United States exactly what he wanted, thereby leaving his subjects to become his subjects now known as Citizens of The Vatican’s corporations. Do not forget that treaty of April 21, 1214 where the King turned his entire Kingdom and SUBJECTS over to the Pope/Vatican corporation. You are now under Ecclesiastical law of the Vatican since 1787. The books I have showing the Vatican rules every aspect of your movements and daily lives. HE created the IRS in 1861 and you never knew it. How do you think I got free in 1998 from all taxes state or US or any other income tax? AND the SSN is your enemy ID to deal in banking. It was not for social security. The two corporate cases settled by the corporate Supreme court came right out in 1935 and said there never was a Social Security. It was all a fraud and it was admitted in 1953 of which I have that document that I posted two years before ATGPRESS was shut down by powers you never knew existed.

Justice Field dissenting, stated in the Erie Railway case of 1892. I paraphrase to keep this short .”The government thus lays a tax, through the instrumentality of the company, upon the income of a non-resident alien over whom it cannot justly exercise any control, nor upon whom it can justly lay any burden. The power of the United States to tax is limited to PERSONS, property, and business within their jurisdiction, as much as that of the State is limited to the same subjects within its jurisdiction.” . United States v. Erie Railway Company, 106 US 327. This Court you just might be in, has to Produce to YOU, the Three Facts of evidence, stated by the Court above, #1 that YOU absolutely and entirely renounced and abjures all allegiance and fidelity to GOD our creator. #2 And had given YOUR intentions to the court to become a U.S. Citizen / SUBJECT of a corporate nature in writing.

There are no other provision of the acts of congress under which YOU could have been naturalized. The Court did State” AND NOT OTHERWISE.” #3 And since the statute at large, Not Code, says it’s recorded in fact two. Either the court has to provide it or you win hands down when the plaintiff cannot produce this fact evidence to you and the court . The Court is the only one that has it not the R.I.C.O. agent coming after you. Why would he have it if all they work from is PRESUMPTION? The court has the record when you became A US citizen as it was “recorded”. That destroys their PRESUMPTION YOU ARE NOT A PERSON, US OR STATE citizen, Taxpayer, or that you are the all cap artificial entity. It then throws the PRESUMPTION BACK AT them . Remember the phrase, See you did not pay attention, to the last sentence in #1 of SUPPOSITION. This is only an infallibility upon supposition that if a thing be true, it is impossible to be false. This is what kills them You made them prove YOU are a MAN a NONRESIDENT NOT IN CONTRACT, therefore the Alien. So being the supposition is false on you being a US citizen by PRESUMPTION, the reverse is true that you are an alien, MAN and NOT a PERSON. Who Madison wrote about in his federalist paper 42 and paper 43 The Free White Inhabitant (Alien) man. I wrote extensively on this in my books and free stuff on atgpress for 10 years at least. One was TERMS not WORDS explaining they make up their own definitions . This last part of the case in Which one are you, says a lot.

Judge Leavy then went on to quote Assessors v. Osborne, 9 Wall. 76 U.S. 567 at 574, `District Courts are courts of special jurisdiction, and therefore, they cannot take jurisdiction of any case, either civil or criminal, where they are not authorized to do so by an Act of Congress’,–he said it is– “a leading case, and has not been distinguished, modified or over-ruled.” emphasis his.

In 1988 Congress eliminated the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to review decisions on appeal from State Courts and decisions of the United States court of appeals. Does this sound like a Republican Government under the separation of Powers doctrine, or a commissioner form of corporate government (democracy), operating through corporate administrative agencies and commercial tribunals (corporation) COURTS of “ special jurisdiction.” I Know as I was the first case from a state case on appeal that was denied.

The INFORMER
November 10, 2011

HISTORY Not Now Taught in Public Schools The Cover-Up of the Truth

March 4, 2012

PRELUDE

This article came from an Encyclopedia of American History used to teach school kids until 1955. Published by Harper and Row. It is 840 pages of a wealth of information. It shows the man who really discovered America . It shows all the land was called the Virginia land company In dispute with the two corporations, the East India company and the Hudson Bay company. All three companies were owned by British business corporations. Remember the American did not know at the time that the Vatican owned and controlled these British corporations and the subjects since the 1214 Treaty the King had with the Vatican ‘s Pope. However to hide this fact the King was allowed to be the front for the Vatican so as to hide this fact as the modern Mafia has corporations front for them to hide from the FBI and other agencies. So, with that background, we shall see just how far down the slippery slopes of the Corporations of the States and United States are allowed to stifle education so much so that people have no clue who they really are and no clue who controls them. I will not make any comment as it is all from the history books you present day people under 58 never have seen books in schools like this. IF I DO MAKE COMMENTS it will be in all CAPS with [[[around them]]] the bolds are from the book itself and is not by chapters but by the era of the time periods and you are referred to other pages of the book. So one is constantly going back and forth in the book.

This sets the stage for the states to operate as they do today. Basically it is to show you all states were and are corporations and not a government created by the common man and women as taught you today. That is one Myth I talk about in the MYTH and The Reality book The reason this book was eliminated from Grade 8 to grade 12, was to keep the young child’s impressionable mind closed, so no reasoning powers could develop to ask questions. Basically this is why kids graduating from schools today can read, but they have no comprehension of the words they read.

As my kids grew up in the 60′s and 70′s they did not have this teaching book as I had. In conversing with the Newspaper Guild In Washington D.C. in 1993, I asked, “What are all the newspapers printed at?” They said a stunning fifth-grade level. I asked why? They stated that to write any higher-grade level would turn away advertisers because the people could not understand a word above a fifth-grade level. I asked, “All papers?” They said no, the two papers written at a ninth-grade level are the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal.

Now I understand it is down to a fourth-grade level. If you ever wondered why so many adults are NOT smarter than a fifth grader, it should be evident. But in all fairness to some people: The woman across the road home schools her kids. They are very smart and read some of my books and can understand them, while many a person fighting the agencies of the corporations cannot comprehend what a 15-year-old boy and a 12-year-old girl can. They, the adults, were corporation-schooled to dumb them down as said by many men and women of 55 and older. When I was in high school reading this very book, I was not educated as to who owned the United States, if all were corporations. And neither mom nor dad could explain. I was told that the Constitution was created to protect the people and was written by the people. So at the age of 16, what is a young man’s and a young girl’s thoughts on? Surely not who runs the corporations.

So the Myth that the owner of all the States and United States was never revealed to me until I reached the age of 43. I pulled out the history book, part of which you will read, then it all started to make sense and why no one could tell me who owned the corporation called State of So and So and the corporation called “The United States.” The book was pulled the year after I left high school in 1954. I graduated 52 out of a class of 170, so I was not an exceptionally smart student.

After reading again what I missed in 47 to 54, I got real smart and I hope everyone reading this will remember that everything called government is nothing but a private corporation out to make as much profit as it can at your expense. That’s what corporations do to stay alive.

Chapter 1

This starts in the book 16 pages in, with the heading , Columbus and Subsequent Exploration It is from 1451 and ends 1635. I NOW QUOTE THE BOOK

1497, 2 May-6 August 1 st Cabot Voyage.

Cabot born in Italy , real name Caboto, migrated to England 1484-90 where he lived in Bristol as a merchant Henry VII issued in 1497 to the Cabots John and his three sons, a Patent to discover for England regions to the east, west, and north( avoiding Portuguese claims). In return for a trade monopoly and custom exemptions the Cabots were to turn over to the crown 20% of all trading profits. They left England May 1497 with a crew and prominent merchants. He sighted land June 24 th and took possession of Newfoundland for Henry VII and sailed to Maine . It appears that Cabot’s company explored the coast of North America as far south as Delaware or Chesapeake Bay [[[ THIS WAS ALSO CLAIMED FOR HENRY VII]]]

1576 to 1606 English search for North west passage. Martin Frobisher sailed from England (June 1576) and pressed northwest after sighting Greenland until he reached Baffin Island and entered Frobisher Bay, believing it to be a straight between America and Asia. [[[ NOTE THEY CALLED THE COUNTRY, AMERICA ]]] To exploit his discovery the Company of Cathay was organized both for mining operations, which he conducted in Baffin Land . He returned to Bristol with 200 tons of ore. Now it tells much more than this. George Weymouth, backed by the East India Company had to turn back because of mutiny. John Knight, sponsored by both the East India company and Muscovy Cos. Explored the shores of newfound land and LABRADOR. [[[[[[ AS YOU CAN READ ALL THIS WAS DONE BY PRIVATE CORPORATIONS OF ENGLAND GIVEN PATIENTS BY HENRY VII, NOT REALIZING THEY WERE ALL CONTROLLED BY THE VATICAN AFTER APRIL 14, 1214 TREATY WAS SIGNED BY THE POPE AND KING JOHN. THIS CAN BE FOUND IN MANY OF THE INFORMER'S BOOKS AND JAMES MONTGOMERY'S RESEARCH AND IN NUMEROUS OTHER BOOKS OF HISTORY , INCLUDING THE PAPAL BULLS OF THE VATICAN ]]]

Chapter 2

The founding of the English Colonies 1578- 1732

1578-83 Virginia Sir Humphrey Gilbert , obtained a patent June 11 from Queen Elizabeth for the discovery and colonization in northwest America . But his plan to establish a colony as a base against Spain had to await financial support.

1584-1602 Raleigh’s Colony, Sir Walter Raleigh, a half-brother of Gilbert and a member of his last expedition was granted a virtual renewal of the gilbert patient Raleigh explored and called his find Virginia.

1605-1606 George Weymouth sailed under the auspices of the Earl of Southampton and the latter’s Roman Catholic son-in-law, Sir Thomas Arundel, ostensibly to establish a colony for Catholics who found their position in England insecure.

The account of Guy Fawkes arrest ( Nov. 4, 1605) narrated in James Rosier’s Relation , prompted two interrelated groups of merchants, from London and Plymouth, to petition the Crown [[[THE CROWN IS NOT THE KING, BUT THE CROWN BANK RULING THE KING AND QUEENS, FOR AN EXPLANATION ONE HAS TO READ THE BOOK THE MYTH AND THE REALITY—JUST WHO OWNS THE UNITED STATES AND JAMES MONTGOMERY'S ARTICLES]]] for a patient Under its TERMS two Virginia Companies — the London ( or South Virginia) Company and the Plymouth ( or North Virginia ) were established Company . The former was authorized to settle in a region between 34 degrees N and 41 degrees N ( present NY City); the latter45 degrees N and 38 degrees N ( present Washington, DC). [[[ YOU SEE THAT THE VIRGINIA LAND COMPANY DID NOT MEAN PRESENT VIRGINIA . IT MEANT FROM MAINE TO GEORGIA AND AS FAR WEST AS THE PA, OHIO BORDER. THIS HISTORY BOOK SHOWS THIS ON THE MAPS. CORPORATIONS RAN THE PLANTATIONS. JUST AS THE DO NOW]]]

1619-24 . Final period of company control The harsh legal code was repealed, A general assembly, comprising 22 burgesses (2 chosen by the planters from each town, hundred, or plantation.)

[[[ THE DEFINITION OF PLANTATION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FARMING. THE DEFINITION IS GIVEN IN BURKES CONCILIATION OF THE COLONIES TO WIT ; "PLANTATIONS. – colonies, the plantings of a new society or race. The term is regularly so used in acts and charters, and has no reference whatever to cultivation of the soil.” page 81 note 12 .
[[[ERGO WE HAVE BUSINESS PEOPLE NOW RUNNING THE COMPANY THAT ARE PRIVATE COMPANIES, NOT THE HUGE COMPANIES IN ENGLAND .]]]

1624-42 Sir Francis Wyatt , who had been company governor was appointed governor by James I. He in turn was suspended by George Yeardly mar, 1626, his successor, Francis West was instructed to call the general assembly. Sir Francis Wyatt was instructed to convene the burgesses “ once a year or oftener”.

[[[ WHY DID WYATT APPEAR AFTER BEING SUSPENDED? WHO ARE THE MERCHANTS CALLED BURGESSES? DOES IT REMIND YOU OF THE SAME CORPORATE POLICIES OF TODAY?

DEFINITION OF BURGESSES 1828 WEBSTER'S (4) BEFORE THE REVOLUTION, THE REPRESENTATIVES IN THE POPULAR BRANCH OF THE LEGISLATURE OF VIRGINIA , WERE CALLED BURGESSES , AS THE HOUSE OF BURGESSES . IT IS NOW CALLED THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES. SO YOU HAVE THE MERCHANTS OF SMALL CORPORATIONS , THE POPULAR BRANCH, RUNNING THE OLD CORPORATION DESIGNED BY THE VIRGINIA LAND COMPANY BUT NOT CALLED THE VIRGINIA LAND COMPANY. WHERE IS THE COMMON MAN AND WOMEN IN THIS TIME PERIOD , LIKE YOU AND ME?]]]

1642-52 Wyatt’s successor, Sir William Berkeley, introduced a number of reforms, including the abolition of the poll tax. An Indian uprising by Opechancanough was suppressed The Indians ceded all lands between the York and the James from the falls of Kecoughton, but retained the territory north of the York Om Jan, 30, 1649 Virginia [[ THE LAND COMPANY, NOT THE VIRGINIA OF TODAY]] announced its allegiance to the Stuart House after the execution of Charles I and gave refuge to prominent cavaliers. In retaliation, Parliament passed an Act ( Oct. 1650) imposing a blockade on Virginia and subsequently dispatched two armed vessels with commissioners who received the submission of Berkeley and the council (1652) upon liberal terms. Following a new election, the burgesses chose as Governor Richard Bennett, one of the Parliamentary commissioners. Samuel Matthews, threatened to dissolve the burgesses(1658). With the death of Matthews the burgesses asserted “supreme power” until lawful authority might be forth coming from England , and elected the Royalist, Berkeley, Governor (1660). [[[ SO FAR ALL THAT IS RUNNING THE LAND COMPANY, ARE CORPORATE EXECS OF NOBILITY AND NO COMMON MAN IS ALLOWED IN THIS PRIVATE CLUB THAT ALL COLONIES ARE IN SUBMISSION AND THE MEN AND WOMEN ARE RULED BY CORPORATE DICTATES.]]]

CHAPTER 3

Settlement of New England

[[[ This part is exceptionally long so I will give the highlights only as to the corporate nature of every colony in New England ]]]
QUOTE:

Plymouth
1606-20 Early Activities of Plymouth company
1624-26 Massachusetts Bay . Dorchestor company
1628, The New England company

1629 The Cambridge Agreement. The position of the Puritans was becoming increasingly insecure after the dissolution of Parliament (1629) and the growing influence of William Laud (Bishop of London), a zealous defender of conformity. Twelve Puritan members of the Massachusetts Bay company signed the Cambridge Agreement, whereby they undertook to emigrate to America provided the charter and government were transferred thither. The company ratified the agreement (1629)

1630-34 Civil government. Was rapidly established. [[[ WHERE IS THE COMMON MAN IN ALL THIS? ALL THERE ARE, ARE CORPORATIONS , SOME PRIVATE SOME OF THE KING. THE SO CALLED “ CIVIL GOVERNMENT” IS NOTHING BUT A GOVERNMENT OF CORPORATIONS IN THE CIVIL NATURE OF THE LAW MERCHANT GOING BACK TO HAMMURABBI IN THE 1600 BC ERA THAT RULES ALL CORPORATIONS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW]]]

1635. Banishment of Roger Williams— Williams arrived in New England (1631), served in the Salem and Plymouth churches, and became pastor of the former ( early 1635) He attacked the validity of the charter, questioned the right of the civil [[[ CORPORATE]]] authorities to legislate in the matters of conscience, and urged the Salem church to separate from the rest

1635-1638. Attempts to revoke Charter – A Privy Counsel committee( “Lords Commissioners for the Plantations in General,” known as “Land Commission”) ordered the recall of the Charter on the ground it had been surreptitiously obtained and unwarranted overstepped. Georges was ordered to serve a writ of quo warranto on the Massachusetts officials, and the King’s Bench ordered the charter cancelled (1637) 1631-60 Founding of Connecticut

The Dorchester corporation and Plymouth corporation along with Edward Winslow of Plymouth explored the Connecticut Valley as far north as Windsor. On July 7, 1635 a group headed by Lord Saye and Sele, who claimed rights to settle the region on the basis of patent from the Council for New England assigned by the Earl of Warwick (1631), authorized John Winthrop , Son of the Bay Colony’s Governor, to take control at the mouth of the Connecticut River
1636-56. Rhode Island settlements.

Roger Williams established his colony at Seekonk ( Providence ), solely on the basis of an Indian deed. Roger Williams Left for England 1643 to obtain a charter which was granted him 1644. The general assembly drafted a constitutional structure establishing freedom of conscience, separating church and state, providing for town referenda on laws passed by the assembly, and giving to towns as well as the assembly to right to initiate laws.

1638-43 New Hampshire . John Wheelwright , established the Town of Exeter . His settlers signed the Exeter Compact (based on the mayflower compact). Wheelwright withdrew to Maine when Portsmouth and Dover conceded the authority to Massachusetts .
1640-51 Maine . A provincial court was established at York . Massachusetts persisted in its expansionist aims . Despite an appeal by Maine government to Parliament (1651), The Massachusetts General Court held that Maine was legally included within the boundaries of the Bay Colony.

[[[ HERE IS A CORPORATION TAKING OVER A COLONY, MUCH LIKE WHAT WE HAVE TODAY IN THIS COUNTRY. Is there anything not new under the sun?]]]

1641-60 Massachusetts as an Independent Commonwealth. Robert Child and other remonstrants attacked the Bay Colony for its civil and religious discrimination against non- Puritans and for not observing the laws of England . Winthrop and other magistrates framed a reply, and the General Court declared: “Our allegiance binds us not to the laws of England any longer than while we live in England. ”. Northern colonies with the exception of Rhode Island , whose code of 1647 adhered to the English Common law. Massachusetts , in defiance of Parliament, declared herself an Independent commonwealth [[ CORPORATION]]

New England Under the Restoration, 1660-75

Charles II Proclaimed The Restoration imperiled the position of the New England colonies.

1661-63 The Restoration threatened the independent existence of Connecticut ( which had no charter) and Rhode Island (whose charter , 1644, now had no legality. John Winthrop, jr , obtained a Royal Charter for Connecticut (1662) whose boundaries were described.

Chapter 4

Settlement of the Middle Colonies

New Netherlands [[ New York ]]

QUOTE

1610-18 Independent voyages. Following the voyage of Henry Hudson for the Dutch East India Company, several exploring and trading voyages under Dutch auspices were made to that area. The 13 ship owners engaged in trade with the new world organized the New Netherland Co. (1614)

June 3, 1621 Founding of Dutch West India Co. Under the leadership of William Usselinx, a prominent merchant, The Dutch West India Co. Was chartered by the States General, which participated in its financing The Charter conferred a trading monopoly and the right to colonize it in the new world and along the west coast of Africa 1624 First permanent settlement. 30 families sailed from Amsterdam . On arrival in New York Bay, a small group was left at a fort on Nut ( Governors) Island, several families sent to the Delaware where they established Ft. Nassau (now Gloucester, N.J.) It is conjectured, but not established, that some members of this third group settled on Manhattan Island and that mother Walloons crossed the East River to Long Island .

1629 To promote farm settlement with a view to making the colony self- sufficient as well as a supply base for the expanding merchant marine of the COMPANY both in Brazil and the West Indies, the Charter of Freedoms and Exemptions , under which the Company was empowered to grant to those transporting 50 settlers estates fronting 16 miles along navigable rivers, and extending inland as far as settlement would permit.

1638-40 The New Sweden or New South Co. was organized as successor to a series of trading companies. [[[ THIS THE PRESENT STATE OF DELAWARE . AND AGAIN ALL SETTLERS WHERE UNDER CORPORATION CONTROL AS MEMBERS OF THE “COLONY” JUST LIKE ALL AMERICANS ARE TODAY]]]

1647-63 The Dutch members of the New Sweden Co. were bought out and the company reorganized with an increase of capital and an extension of control by the Swedish crown. [[[ crown is the exchequer ( bank), not the King.]]]

1661-64 The English regarded the Dutch settlement as blocking westward expansion and interfering with the enforcement of the Navigation Acts through clandestine trade in tobacco. “The Company of Royal Adventures to Africa ” with a monopoly of the African slave trade (reincorporated as the Royal African Co., 1663: lost its monopoly1698. Charles II granted his brother, James, Duke of York , all of Maine all islands between Cape Cod and the Narrows, and all land from the western boundary of Connecticut to the eastern shore of Delaware Bay , with power to govern, subject to the reservation that judicial appeals might be taken to the crown.

1664 – 1668 Nicolls renamed New Amsterdam New York in honor of the Duke of York but permitted the Dutch municipal officers to continue to function and even to name their own successors.

New Jersey

1664 1665 The Duke of York granted to John Lord Berkeley and Sir George Carteret the region between the Hudson and Delaware Rivers . Technically, no governmental rights were conveyed, but the proprietors proceeded to issue their Concessions and Agreements, modeled on the Carolina Concessions, granting freedom of conscience, land on generous terms subject to quitrents, and the right of freeholders to send deputies to a general assembly .

1674-87 Lord Berkeley sold his proprietary rights for 1000 pounds to John Fenwick and Edward Byllinge , fellow Quakers, The province was divided 1676 between East and West Jersey by the Quintipartite Deed between Carteret, Byllinger, William Penn.
1701-38 In 1701 the Board of Trade [[BRITISH]] recommended that the crown [[ BANK OF ENGLAND , NOT THE KING]] resume control of the private colonies. In 1702 the proprietors surrendered governmental authority to the crown.
THE COLONIES AND THE EMPIRE 1624-1775

May 16,1624 Revocation of Virginia Co Charter , making Virginia a Royal colony.
1643-59 Parliamentary Commission for Plantations

[[[ THIS MEANS ALL COLONIES CORPORATE, FROM MAINE TO GEORGIA WERE REVOKED BY THE KING AND THE KING NOW , WORKING FOR THE VATICAN MIND YOU VIA TREATY OF APRIL 14 1214 , NOW IS IN CONTROL OF ALL THE CORPORATE COLONIES]]]

1649 With the plantations virtually inactive all their functions were assumed by the Council of State, which set up a standing committee to handle trade . The King in council appointed a Committee for Trade and Plantations of the Privy Council

[[[ IF ONE READS WHAT WAS FOUND IN NORTH CAROLINA IN 1996, YOU TOO WILL SEE THE SAME OLD COUNCIL OF STATE OPERATION. IN FACT IF YOU GO TO YOUR SECRETARY OF STATE, YOU CAN GET THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE. PROVING THE VATICAN CONTROLS ALL CORPORATE STATES AND UNITED STATES THE SAME WAY. YOU WILL NOT FIND MENTION OF THE VATICAN AT ALL IN ANY HISTORY BOOKS IN THS COUNTRY], FOR THE SIMPLE REASON IT DOES NOT WANT IT KNOWN IT IS PULLING THE STRINGS TO ACHIEVE IT’S GOAL OF WORLD DOMINATION. IT OPERATES THRU COUNTRIES AND CORPORATIONS AS SHOWN IN ITS ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE, I PUT IN THE MYTH AND REALITY BOOK]]]

1696-1782 The Board of Trade , commissioned by William III, comprised 15 members (7 high officials including Privy Councilors, 8 paid members, including a First Lord of Trade, president of the Board), was empowered to supervise (1) trade and the fisheries, (2) care of the poor,(3) plantation affairs, (4) recommend appointments of colonial officials, and (5) review colonial legislation and report to the Privy Council.

1673-76 The Treasury Board’s colonial functions were greatly expanded as a result of the Navigation Laws ( particularly the act of 1673).

1697 Establishment of Vice Admiralty Courts . Under the Navigation Act of 1696 the Privy Council directed the Board of Trade to establish vice -admiralty courts in the colonies, acting under the governors of New York , Massachusetts , Maryland , Pennsylvania , and Virginia designated judges and other officers of such courts. [[[ WE HAVE THE SAME COURT SYSTEM NOW AS THEN, DESPITE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAY. IT'S ALL IN THE 1789 FIRST JUDICIARY ACT, SECTION 34 AND IN MANY LEGAL BOOKS SUCH AS PROFESSOR BENEDICT'S ADMIRALTY LAW PUBLISHED BY MATTHEW P BENDER , 7 TH EDITION. IT IS ALSO WRITTEN BY CHARLES WARREN IN HIS TREATISE, THE HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN BAR PRINTED 1966, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS # 66-24357]]]

[[[ THERE WERE MANY WARS WITHIN THE COLONIES THAT WOULD TAKE UP TOO MUCH SPACE BUT THEY ARE JUST QUOTED BELOW BY NAMES ]]]

1632-70 New France to King Williams War
1689 King William’s War (War of the League of Augsburg)
1702 Queen Anne’s War
1739-42 War of Jenkins’ Ear
1740-48 King George’s War
1754 The French and Indian War ( Seven Years War)

ERA OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

1784 state constitutions . During the revolution 11 of the 13 states drew up new constitutions. (R.I. and Conn. Continued to use the colonial charters of 1662 and 1663, merely deleting all references to the British Crown.) [[ CROWN MEANING THE KING AS IT WAS CAPITALIZED. OTHER REFERENCES OF CROWN NOT CAPITALIZED MEANS THE BANKERS ( EXCHEQUER) THIS IS WHAT IS CRITICAL IN ANY WRITING, GRAMMAR AND PUNCTUATION TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS REALLY BEING SAID.]]

These new constitutions were the work of revolutionary congresses or conventions. Constitutions where adopted by N.H,. N.J., Pa. , Del. , Md. , Va. ,N.C., and S.C. in 1776; by N.Y. and Ga. In 1977

[[[ PLEASE NOTE: AGAIN GRAMMAR COMES INTO PLAY, IN THAT CONGRESS NOT CAPITALIZED ABOVE DOES NOT MEAN THE US CONGRESS, BUT JUST A BUNCH OF MEN (CONGRESS) OR CONVENTION OF MEN, GOT TOGETHER UNKNOWN TO THE COLONIES AND DRAFTED A CONSTITUTION, THEN THE STATES, JUST LIKE THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS DID, ADOPTED SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT THEIRS. THE WORD adopt IS FOUND TO BE SOMETHING NOT YOURS BUT THAT YOU ADOPTED IT AS IF IT WAS YOURS. THAT IS THE MYTHS ALL AMERICANS FELL FOR BELIEVING THEY ( THE COMMON MAN) WROTE ALL CONSTITUTIONS WHEN THEY DID NO SUCH THING.]]]

[[[HERE IS WHAT THE AMERICAN NEVER WILL GRASP. THAT IS IN THIS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICANHISTORY]]]

Quoting again the book.

1789, First Presidential Election

First Congress under the Constitution met in New York without a quorum (8 Senators and 13 representatives)

House of Representatives organized with 30 of its 59 members present Executive Departments. The first executive department created under the new government was that of Foreign Affairs Established 27 July, it was officially redesignated ( 15 Sept) Department of State.

1791 First Bank of the U.S. 1790, Hamilton submitted to the house his report on a national bank. Washington requested members of his cabinet [[[THIS CABINET IS NOTHING OTHER THAN THE COUNCIL OF STATE UNDER THE KING'S CORPORATION LAW]]] to submit written opinions on the constitutionality of the measure . Jefferson ‘s opinion (15 Feb.) Maintaining that the bill was unconstitutional advanced the doctrine commonly known as” strict constructionist.” Jefferson took as his main ground the 10 th Amendment ( not yet adopted). The incorporation of the bank, he argued, was not among the powers specifically delegated to Congress. Hamilton ‘s opinion (23 Feb.) Elaborated the powers of “ implied powers” ( the so called “ loose constructionist” view of the Constitution. He contended that the proposed bank was related to the Congressional power to collect taxes and regulate trade.

[[[ THIS IS AS LAME AN EXCUSE AS ANY WHEN YOU REALLY THINK ABOUT IT. FOR IF IT WAS THAT IMPORTANT TO SIMPLY COLLECT TAXES, WHAT ON EARTH DOES A BANK HAVE TO DO WITH THE ACT OF TAX COLLECTION? YOU HAVE A DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY TO STORE ALL THE TAXES. AND WHAT ABOUT TRADE? WHAT ON EARTH DOES A BANK HAVE TO DO WITH TRADE? THERE WAS MORE TO IT THAN THAT LITTLE CHARADE. MUCH MORE. YOU CAN READ IT IN THIS ARTICLE ON ATGPRESS HTTP://WWW.ATGPRESS.COM/INFORM/WEP002.HTM.]]]

3 mar. 1791 Hamilton ‘s 2 nd report recommended an excise tax on manufacture of distilled spirits..

[[[ EVERY THING WE HAVE TO DAY WAS THE CAUSE OF HAMILTON WHO WAS IN THE EXECUTIVE, WHICH WAS FOREIGN AFFAIRS ONLY AS YOU HAVE READ. HE WAS BRINGING IN ALL FOREIGN CONCERNS TO RULE THIS COUNTRY AND CAUSED A FEUD BETWEEN HAMILTON AND JEFFERSON AND ENDED IN A DUEL WHEN AARON BURR KILLED HAMILTON , BUT THE DAMAGE WAS ALREADY DONE. TO SEE WHY HAMILTON DID WHAT HE DID, READ THIS HTTP://WWW.ATGPRESS.COM/INFORM/BA038.HTM]]]

End of quoting the Encyclopedia of American history

There are much, much more in this book so I cut it short. The idea was to show present day Americans, all that went on in this country that the men and women that came here to settle plantations were hobbled with corporateness and every city town and village was nothing but a traders corporation. Then, when the 1776 war started the corporations of colonies were all a confederation that broke away from the British Rule but were still owned by that treaty of April 1214 when the King signed his entire empire you just read about, over to the Vatican . So the 1776 war did nothing to free the colonies or Americans as they were pledged to the Vatican in April of 1214.

The King was nothing but a front man for the corporation of the Vatican and allowed to operate free as he wanted. Just as happened in 1664 to 1668 above in the book. Who actually owns what John Cabot found in the beginning of this book article. The Book was a school text book and The Consultant Editors were the who’s Who of History Professors And then was edited by Richard B Morris Professor of History of Columbia University. This book cannot be found anywhere, Because the Publishers were bought out by the Black Popes operatives in this country so it was eliminated. So in the long run the Americans are still controlled by the Vatican . And the crowns you read about in the book were not the Kings unless specifically named, they were the Bankers ( Exchequers) of Europe that controlled all as they do in America .

In a point of fact, all the owners of the federal Reserve are the Exchequers and are the foreign controlled elite of the Vatican . The same ones, not the same persons that were the First Bank of the United States . Maybe you missed it, but if you reread the article where this is a country named America not the United States . To most Americans they believe the country is United States . Then why, of all reason are you called an American and not a United Statesman or something leaving America out? Think a little. If you know the definition of the word “OF” you will know just what the phrase “The United States OF America” is saying. When the corporate colonies became States they retained their corporate character .

But of course the men and women at that time was kept in the dark that they were owned by the Vatican and no longer were British subjects and the Vatican proceeded to take over the States, which all were his to begin with, and created the Corporation of the United States. My book the Myth and the Reality tells how the Vatican did this recapturing of his possessions and why we never won the war against The British. We fought the front man for the owner that’s all. We won the battle and not the entire war. That is a religious war still ongoing between the Lord and Satan. The Vatican ‘s organizational Structure I included in my book shows Lucifer as top boss of the Vatican ‘s both Black and white Popes. They alone created the Religion of ISLAM for a Distinct purpose. That is now coming to fruition after all these centauries. The Vatican looks 200 to 500 years in the future. Do you look that far in even 1/1`0th that time into the future so your offspring’s offspring will have it better?

What were the names, founding dates, and connections to the King of England by the original 13 colonies?

[SOURCE: World Book Encyclopedia (WBE)]

ANSWER:
1067-Virginia – Charter by King to the Virginia Company of London
1620-Massachusetts – Charter granted by the King to the Puritans
1623- New Hampshire – King appointed Council of New England for settlement
1624- New York – Charter by King to Duke of York
1622-Connecticut – Charter by King to John Winthrop
1634-Maryland – Charter by King to Lord Baltimore
1636-Rhode Island – King granted “Charter of Rhode Island & Providence Plantations”
1638-Delaware – Charter by King to Duke of York
1643-Pennsylvania – Grant by King to William Penn
1653-North Carolina – Grant by King to Sir Robert Heath
1660-New Jersey – Grant by King to Duke of York
1670-South Carolina – Grant by King to Eight “Lords Proprietors”
1733-Georgia – Grant by King to a Corporation entitled: “Trustees for Establishing the Colony of Georgia in America

END QUOTE

And who sits in the back ground like the Wizard of Oz hiding behind A front, Pulling the chains even tighter and calling himself a Vicar of Christ, when his own structure shows Lucifer at the top of the heap pulling your chains also as a member of his private corporation? That’s why no one is a follower of the Lord any more, they follow the dictates of Lucifer’s Minions. As the Lord said. if you believe in scriptures altered by the Vatican so many times, And I emphasize part of it that no one quotes it all ; “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast refused knowledge, I will also refuse thee that thou shall be no Priest to me: and seeing thou hast forgotten the Law of thy God, I will also forget thy children .” Hosea 4:6 If that be the case then one cannot sit on a fence,. I generally don’t quote scriptures but for those that do this ought to hit home for all that clam Corporate State of US citizenship. And claim to be a Christian.

Hosea 8:1 & 4… “they have transgressed my covenant, and trespassed against my Law (the Law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus).” Hosea 8:1b (with Romans 8:2 in parentheses added); and,

“They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not:…” Hosea 8:4a “And I heard another voice from heaven say: Go out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues: . . .” Revelations 18:4

“Then Peter and the Apostles answered, and said, ‘We ought rather to obey God than men.’” Acts, 5:29.

And even these Courts Recognize, even they are not above The Lords law that I have quoted many a time falling on deaf ears .

Now all acts of legislature apparently contrary to natural right and justice, are, in our laws, and must be in the nature of things, considered as void. The laws of nature are the laws of God; whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth.

A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from whose punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict his laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey. Such have been the adjudications of our courts of justice. Robin v. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, 114, 1 Va. Reports Ann. 58, 61 (1772) aff’d. Gregory v. Baugh, 29 Va. 681, 29 Va. Rep. Ann. 466, 2 Leigh 665 (1831) And cited 8 Co. 118. a. Bonham’s case. Hob. 87; 7. Co. 14. a. Calvin’s case

Many have ignored truth on atgpress when given, to their standing with the Lord. That’s all self-evident. Those that want to believe in Myths rather than truth, well, tell it to the Lord if you ever meet him.

The Informer September 2010


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.