18 And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.”

August 2, 2015

The blueprint for REAL government is laid out chapter by chapter in the Book of Matthew, which is the first Book in the New Testament. IT SHOULD BE CALLED “Kingdom of YESHUA”.. This is “preferred”because as you can see, BEAST governments controlled by Whore Churches, specifically the ROMAN CHURCH, are evil entities by nature, constantly preying upon everyone for their sustenance; unaccountable, self-interested, dangerous, prone to endless conflicts and wars. It is time for YESHUA’s ministry and the end of Mystery Babylon Cults operating the Whore Churches agenda of the counterfeit World Government Not of Yeshua but of Satan..

Revelation 17:5 “And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.”

Revelation 17New King James Version (NKJV)
The Scarlet Woman and the Scarlet Beast
17 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and talked with me, saying to me,[a] “Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who sits on many waters, 2 with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication.”
3 So he carried me away in the Spirit into the wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication.[b] 5 And on her forehead a name was written:
6 I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I marveled with great amazement.
The Meaning of the Woman and the Beast
7 But the angel said to me, “Why did you marvel? I will tell you the mystery of the woman and of the beast that carries her, which has the seven heads and the ten horns. 8 The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.[c]
9 “Here is the mind which has wisdom: The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. 10 There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time. 11 The beast that was, and is not, is himself also the eighth, and is of the seven, and is going to perdition.
12 “The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast. 13 These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast.14 These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful.”
15 Then he said to me, “The waters which you saw, where the harlot sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues. 16 And the ten horns which you saw on[d] the beast, these will hate the harlot, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 17 For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled. 18 And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.”

The Whore of Revelation

FALLACY & MYTH of the PEOPLE BEING THE SOVEREIGN — And that the Constitution was for the Common Man

May 30, 2015

by The Informer

In reading the Book WAR POWERS, published in 1864, by Whiting, who was the Solicitor General of the War Department of The United States, it does not come as a shock to me that we are nothing but slaves of Congress, AKA the United States. Whiting was Lincoln’s point man and developed the basis for Lincoln’s justification of the War Policies. Whiting teamed up with Fancis Lieber who wrote the “Lieber Code” that we are now under. James Montgomery, a present day researcher, also has written extensively on the Reconstruction Acts and the Lieber Code and how they apply to Americans to this very day. After Whiting left office, the position that he held, was never replaced.

Many people believe the term “United States” is NOT separate and distinct from the term “United States of America”, but that the two are synonymous. As I stated way back in 1990 and continue to state, America is a country, and the United States is NOT a country. The United States belongs to America. Since the phrase United States OF America contains the word “OF” between the two words United States and America, proper use of the word OF means the United States belongs to America. Another grammatical rule is that the phrase United States is a particular place and not a group of states united. To become a group of states the word United would have to appear as united States. The small “u” would change the word United from a noun to an adjective. To be grammatically correct, one would have to write united States of America to correctly mean all 50 States. But even that is not a country. Simply writing United States of America means only Congress, AKA the United States. A very simple proof is that when the TV airs the State of the Union message the President is always announced by stating, “I now present the President of the United States.” He is never introduced as “the President of the united States of America”. To be the President of the united States of America would mean that the Governors of each of the states would not have the final say on any laws passed in that state but would have to depend on submitting anything the Governor had to sign to the President for final approval.

As I have previously demonstrated in my other books, through copious government documents, both of the United States and England and history, that the common people never ratified the constitutions of any of the states, much less the United States, people still believe that they created the constitutions and are, therefore, the so called Sovereign. This sovereign status is claimed to mean that the people can tell government what and when to do anything through their perceived notion that they have representatives and these so called representatives are their servants. This is a myth that has been told people down through the centuries. This big lie is passed from generation to generation so much so that people of all walks of life now accept it as gospel truth. This myth has caused much dissent among the vast majority of people and and has even caused infighting amongst people called “patriots”, “militia” and others of like mind. This WAR POWERS book is further support for my research and others such as Mr. Montgomery. I will lead into this myth by quoting Whiting and what this great authority on War Powers had to say back in 1864. This will be very short and as I read through the book I will add to this work of Fallacy and Myth. It will be unbelievable to many who still believe the Big Lie that they are sovereign and somehow have control of this supposed government they created and can dispense with it when it becomes oppressive as it has today. I hope you are ready because what follows are not my words but those of the author Whiting with the concurrence of all government branches. You also have to remember that we have been in a state of war with these people called Congress and the other two branches of so called government.

The United States is a belligerent government under the international law of nations and the people therein, yes you, dear reader, are the enemy subject and have never, ever, been a sovereign, and neither have your relatives as far back as 1787, UNLESS your relatives were among the aristocracy having land and money and possibly a grant from the Crown.

Before I get into the book, and to give you what we call modern day research, I have to start with 48 Stat 1 which Roosevelt shoved through in Executive Order 2039 without Congress on the 4th and 5th of March 1933. Then on March 9, 1933 Roosevelt convened Congress and basically told them what he did and that they had to sign off on it as he declared a national emergency. This National Emergency made the United States citizens enemies by adding them to the 1917 Trading with the Enemies Act by changing 5(b) of that Act to include Americans, which it never did before. This is you today.

The original draft was prepared by the Federal Reserve System, NOT Congress, and can be found in President Hoover’s Papers that may be obtained from any Federal Depository. On March 3, 1933, President Hoover declared it to be unconstitutional and refused to implement what the Federal Reserve Board drafted. Immediately after taking office on March 4, 1933, after implementing what Hoover refused, the first thing Roosevelt did was to close the banks so they could be issued licenses by the President to deal with the enemy, who was defined now to be all people in the country. Immediately after that, each State set up its own Emergency War Powers regime to coincide with the United States. After thorough research in North Carolina by a team of 5 people, we came up with documentation between the United States and not only North Carolina but other States. It was to slowly induce people into obtaining licenses as now the people, being declared “public enemies,” had to have licenses. The documentations showed how all people that were not required to have a license to drive were now required to have a license merely to travel as a right because they were the enemies. This documentation also showed how speed laws were set; how federal labor laws and unemployment compensation was legislated into the States; and the most important of all, the social security touted as “insurance”, was in actuality a means of licensing the “enemy” to track their commerce under the trading with the newly revised 1917 Trading With the Enemy Act. This enemy surveillance is very evident today by the use of the social slave number called Social Security. It was instituted by the President, NOT Congress as most people believe. Oh sure, Congress passed legislation so it appears they instituted it, but under the war powers only the President institutes anything of importance and Congress under the constitutional war powers takes a second seat. They, in effect, become the puppets of the executive branch. While under the war powers,all branches that should come under the legislative branch and even the judiciary, are controlled by the executive department through the Commander-in-Chief.

Since 1933, and before then, we have always been under Executive Emergency Orders despite the fact that in 1974 all EXCEPT for section 5(b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917 was repealed. You can find it alive and well in Title 12 USC 95 (a) & (b). You can also find the other emergency war powers acts still existing from 1862 which have NEVER been repealed. They have their genesis from 12 Stat 319, and are 50 USC 212, 213, and 215 and 28 USC 2461 to 2465.

This is totally under military powers of the Commander in Chief, The President. This military Rule allows the civil government to operate as it all comes under administrative directives of the Commander In Chief. This explains the reason all courts fly the Executive’s Commander In Chief gold fringe flag and all of its stationary bears the United States Executive Seal. Now that you know that you have been under executive Rule before and since 1933, I will now go back to the first President to institute the Emergency War Powers Act to make the people the enemy of the State. Roosevelt only made you the enemy of the banking cartel to protect them. That is why the private banking system Board can do as they wish with impunity. They even wrote in the law that the signature card you sign when opening a bank account, unbeknownst to you, states in the 35 to 38 page contract they are to give to you, that you assume the debt of the United States. This is unconscionable that you were never informed under the commercial law. This is your promise, assumpsit in legal terms, that obligates and binds you to pay the debt of the United States by becoming the surety. How many people would enter a contract like that, knowing they are responsible for the national debt? Since the Federal Reserve is a private corporation and was made the fiscal agent of the Treasury to collect and disburse money, or choses in action called Federal Reserve notes, is the reason the 1040 IRS Form is a return. A return of a use portion of the debt that is circulated around the nation by the enemy, AKA the people of America. This is a very insidious scheme and people have no idea it exists.

The first President to use the Emergency powers was Washington. He used it to institute the first private bank of the United States which was against all principles of the constitution. Then in order to control the banks in each of the separate states, which Congress could not do under the constitution, he made districts out of each of the states. So now you had states and district states and that is how the district courts of each state were formed so the United States could now have control where it dare not tread before. Once emergency had been declared then all done under this act is constitutional. Contrary to what people believe this act DID NOT set the constitution aside. It only operated in a different way under emergency powers.

Now with all of this in mind, and knowing that the Commander in Chief can operate above the Constitution when military rule under the Emergency Powers Act is invoked, we move to Lincoln’s time and his Solicitor General of the War Department who wrote the book to show how common people have always been considered as nothing but mere chattel property of an aristocratic group called Congress. From the beginning this is the basis upon which people have slowly lost what rights they THOUGHT they had and the plan by means of which to get where we are today without a major rebellion by the people which almost took place in 1861 with the Southern States wanting to secede from the Union. That caused Lincoln to invoke the Emergency Powers Act in Order that he could control the Government without Congress. He did this under the guiding of the works of Whiting. Once invoked, Congress could do nothing to stop it, and the Courts, under this Act, cannot stop it at all. My comments, if needed, are in [brackets] so you know they are not from the book. Every jot and tittle is placed as recorded in the book. With that established let us move to the Book.

Chapter I


“There is no restriction as to the kind or character of private property which may be lawfully thus appropriated, whether it be real estate, personal estate, right in action or in possession, obligations for money, or for labor and service. Thus the obligations of minor children to their parents, of apprentices to their masters, and of persons owing labor and service to their masters, may lawfully be appropriated to public use, or discharged and destroyed for public benefit, by Congress, with the proviso that just compensation shall be allowed to the parent or master.”

[Now people, are you still sovereign? Did common people write such a constitution that would destroy the children so they could be taken by Congress without your consent? I think not.]

“The right to use the services of the minor, the apprentice, and the slave, for public benefit, belongs to the United States. The claims of all American citizens upon their services, whether by local law, or by common law, or by indentures, can be annulled by the same power, for the same reasons, and under the same restrictions that govern the appropriations of any other private property to public use.”

[And you think that the people who fought for freedom would have written and ratified such a power to Congress by way of this constitution that you so dearly love? Are you stating to realize something is amiss?]


“Slaves, as well as apprentices and minors, are equally subjects of the United States, whether they are or are not citizens thereof. The government of the United States has the right to call upon its subjects to do military duty.”

[Now if you are Sovereign why do they call all subjects. They italicised the words, not I. Without a shadow of a doubt you are slaves to Congress. Do you have to wonder any more why the state can take your children and you are powerless to do anything about it? And the common people wrote and believe in a constitution that would allow a group of men called Congress to have so much power when they just fought for freedom? Was not Patrick Henry correct when he stated in the June 7th 1788 Convention that the Constitution, “Among other deformities, it has an awful squinting: it squints toward monarchy. And does not raise indignation in the breast of every American? Your President may easily become King. . . The army will salute him Monarch: your militia will leave you and assist in making him King and fight against you. And what have you to oppose this force? What will then become of you and your rights? Will not absolute despotism ensue?” And what of James Wilson when he voiced, “Henry looked upon “that paper” as “the most fatal plan that could possible be conceived to enslave a free people.” Ok , so what does commit you to the wrath of Congress? It is stated in the book in big italic letters, which you all should look in a grammar dictionary to see what italics mean.]

“The general government of the United States has, in time of peace, a legal right, under the constitution, to appropriate to public use the private property of any subject, or of any number of subjects, owing it allegiance. Each of the States claims and exercises a similar right over the property of its citizens.”

[As stated, the people are “SUBJECTS” of the Government just like the “subjects” of English Rule and the words in italics that control you as subjects are allegiance. Allegiance can be found in many ways. People are pledging the Pledge of Allegiance; claiming to be a citizen of either a State or of the United States; registering to vote; claiming to be a “resident” in the state of the forum; signing a signature card at the bank that obligates to accept the debt of Congress so you are bound by contract to pay, thereby becoming a “subject.”; claiming that the constitution is yours; claiming the constitution was designed by people like you and that is the law that you must abide by. All are presumed to be allegiance. Now did this apply to all, even colored people? Why yes and this Book proves that the Constitution CREATED slavery, and that it took away the rights of citizenship of the colored people. Now, those people that argue that the 14th Amendment made the colored people free might be correct, but it also made the white people slaves when relying on the 14th Amendment, even though they became slaves to the establishment when declared enemies of the “State.” The Book shows the misinformation used by people claiming that only white people were citizens. It also shows that the word citizen was used well before the 14th Amendment, as seen in the quotes below.]

“The only question is, whether this power is not exclusive, see Chirac v Chirac, 2 Wheat. 269; U.S. v Villato, 2 Dall. 372; Thirlow v Mass., 5 How. 585; Smith v Turner, 7 ib, 556; Golden v Prince, 3 W.C.C. Reports, 314

Congress may thus give the privileges of citizenship to any persons whatsoever, black or white. Colored men, having been citizens in some of the States ever since they were founded, having acted as citizens prior to 1788 in various civil and military capacities, are therefore citizens of the United States, see case of Dred Scott; which no part denies that if colored men were citizens of either of the states which adopted the constitution, they were citizens of the United States. … If white subjects or citizens, owe labor or service, even by formal indentures, such obligations afford no valid excuse against the requisition of government to have them drafted into the militia to serve the country.”

[Hence the President and Congress via the Constitution took away the rights of the colored people by declaring them property. The constitution, by which you people who read this; believe that you are sovereign; believe that common people drafted and ratified the constitution; believe that you own your property; believe that you are not subjects of a group of men called Congress, or that of legislators of the states; believe the Bill of Rights protects you; believe the constitution is the supreme law of the land . . . your beliefs are 100 percent wrong. What if I told you that this Book states that treaties and International law of Nations are supreme over even the constitution drafted by the aristocracy of this country and that even the state succumb to these treaties and International Law? This Book proves it. This Book had an advisory board of eight professors and eminent lawyers carrying L.L.D.; J.S.D.; S.J.D.; J.D., M.A.L.S.; F.R.B and Ph.D. to authenticate its contents written by the Solicitor General of the War Department of the United States. The Constitution that you claim you love so much, took away natural rights of man via the following]:-

INDEMNITY IS REQUIRED “But, when individuals are called upon to give up what is their own for the advantage of the community, justice requires that they should be fairly compensated for it; . . . (Amendments, Art. V, last clause,) “Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”

[The language of this amendment admits the right of the United States to take private property for public use. This amendment, being now a part of the constitution, leaves that right no longer open to question, if it ever was in question.]

“PUBLIC USE” What is “public use” for which private property may be taken? Every appropriation for the benefit of the United States, either for a national public improvement, or to carry into effect and valid law of Congress for the maintenance, protection, or security of national interests, is “public use.”

[I end Chapter one of the Book on this note. The above are only parts gleaned from Chapter one of this 342 page book. Chapter one is only 31 pages. The word “Public” means government only and not the mass of people. It is limited to Congress or State Legislators. You common people have no representation whatsoever. All the Congressmen do is represent the United States corporation claiming they represent you in the district state that Washington created under the War Powers clause in 1791. In this chapter it explains the specific parts that are war powers clauses and they are; Article I, Section 8, Clauses 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16. The book also states that, “The preamble to the constitution declares the objects for which it was framed to be these” — then it is quoted.]


The powers of the legislative department in relation to war are contained chiefly in the following sections in the constitution:– Art. I., Sect.8, Cl.11. Congress may institute war by declaring it against an enemy. The President alone cannot do so. Also Congress may make laws concerning captures on land, as well as on water. Art. I., Sect.8, Cl 12. Congress may raise and support armies: and provide and maintain a navy. Art. I., Sect.8, Cl.14. Congress man make laws for the government of land and naval forces. Art. I., Sect. 8. Cl. 15. Congress may provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection, and repel invasion. Art. I., Sect.8, Cl. 16. And may provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. The preamble to the constitution declares the objects for which it was formed to be these: “to form a more perfect Union; establish justice; insure domestic tranquility; provide for the common defense; promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

[So in time of war, which falls under a national emergency, even though no shooting or invasion has occurred, the constitution that you so dearly love and would die for, is the very document that allowed all president Washington to declare the first emergency powers act to institute the first Bank of the United States; Lincoln to make the people and it’s Union Members, the States, the enemy of the United States; Roosevelt to declare the national emergency in 1933 under the War Powers Act and the Trading With the Enemy Act; and the current President, Clinton to control you as citizen/subjects/slaves within the system designed and drafted by the landed aristocracy in treaty with the Crown. That is why the Solicitor, Whiting, stated that International Law of Nations and Treaty rein supreme, and not the Constitution when emergency powers are invoked. This I exposed by court cases in my book The New History of America. The Big Lie is now even more evident and I have just scratched the surface of the first chapter of eight.

In the second chapter we find Congress has the power under the War Power clauses to write statutes in aid of the President “in the final and permanent conquest of a public enemy.” I cannot impress upon the reader the words “conquest and public enemy” and I implore you to study these words on your own in any library. This book pertains to the time of the “civil war” but has far reaching consequences in the principles it spells out.]


“Congress may pass such laws in peace or in war as they are within the general powers conferred on it, unless they fall within some express prohibition of the constitution. If confiscation or emancipation laws are enacted under the war powers of Congress, we must determine, in order to test their validity, whether, in suppressing a rebellion of colossal proportions, the United States are, within the meaning of the constitution, at war with its own citizens? Whether confiscation and emancipation are sanctioned as belligerent rights by law and usage of civilized nations? And whether our government has full belligerent rights against its rebellious subjects.


War may originate in either of several ways. Civil war, within the meaning of the constitution, exists whenever any combination of citizens is formed to resist generally the execution of any one or all the laws of the United States, if accompanied with overt acts to give that resistance effect.”

[Right here is proof that if Congress pass laws that are repugnant to human rights, and there has been a total erosion of many, many freedoms of Americans, as you well know, then they are stating that the people, who are perceived by the people themselves to be Sovereigns, are without any such power to correct the law or laws repugnant to their rights. If the people were truly Sovereigns as they claim, no such section in the constitution created by the common man would exist. For if in doing so, the people would have declared that they elected another King or dictator, and to thwart these rights the people claim as sovereign’s, all the President or Congress has to do is invoke the Emergency Powers Act. Such was done in 1933 when people demanded their money from the banks that had stolen all their money. You know, the ones that you have signed the signature card agreeing to accept the National Debt. This right to seek a return of money deposited in the banks for safe keeping was thwarted by Roosevelt to protect all the banks, which, included his friend Rockefeller who owned the Chicago bank and would lose all his holdings if forced to return the people’s money that was rightfully theirs. This was called suppression by government because they were suppressing a rebellion of the people to claim what was rightfully theirs from a private banking system that was now under the supposed control of the United States as it acted as the agent for the United States when the United States did away with a truly Independent Treasury by the Act of 1920 in the year 1921, making the PRIVATE Federal Reserve system the fiscal agent of the United States.]

“Hence it follows, that government, while engaging in suppressing a rebellion, is not deprived of the rights of a belligerent against rebels, by reason of the fact that no formal declaration of war has been made against them, as though they were an alien enemy — . . . The right of a country to treat its rebellious citizens both as belligerents and as subjects has long been recognized in Europe, and by the Supreme Court of the United States* See Geo.III. Ch. 9 1777; Pickering Statutes, Vol. 31, page 312; President’s Proclamation, April 16, 1861 and U.S. Statute at Large , 1861, App.P. 2. It has been decided, since this edition was in type, that citizens of the States in rebellion are considered as public enemies, and are not entitled to sue in courts of the United States.

[Although this Book deals with the Civil War, the principles laid out are for any emergency declared under the War Power clauses, not just the Civil war of the 1860’s. But Roosevelt invoked that Act, which exists to this day. So the following must be read with this in mind when considering that a majority of people say there is no more constitution. There is a constitution, as it is constitutional for what the government does to you today under War Powers — like take your land as most people in confrontation with farm land or wet lands would agree; confiscate car, home and whatever under the “war on Drugs” without due process of any law that would exist in time of peace; license and number all people to track the public enemies, being you. It behooves the reader to seek the definitions of “belligerent” in both legal and standard dictionaries. The United States, as belligerent IS the de facto government, as people state when reading the definitions closely. I am at this point, inserting what came off the Internet of the hearings before Congress of just one evidence of the confiscation of hundreds of thousands every year, that in time of peace and not under War Powers would have never taken place. When reading this keep in mind what you have already read and are about to read after this actual happening.

Introductory statement at the Judiciary Hearing, July 22, 1996. Rayburn Building.

To: House of Representatives/Committee on the Judiciary/Civil Forfeiture Reform I sincerely appreciate this opportunity to speak to you in person about my mother’s experience with the abuse of our national civil forfeiture law, a law which ignores due process, encourages abuse by police and prosecutors, confiscates property from innocent law-abiding citizens and threatens our sacred honor with the tyranny of a police state. My mother is an 85 pound, 75 year old hardworking frugal lady, who chose to squirrel away any extra money she had rather than buy herself any of the things most people consider necessities. Although she has bought a few residential rental properties, she still tears Kleenex in half to stretch her money, and settles for eating half sandwiches rather than run up her grocery bill. She has never taken a vacation or missed a day’s work in the business, but neither has she ever been to a shopping mall. She’s always lived as though the next Great Depression would happen any day. By 70, she managed to save around $70,000 which she kept in her house because her Depression experience taught her not to always trust banks. In December of 1989, the U.S. Government came to my mother’s home and took her savings from a floor safe in her basement. Three months later, they seized her home and two rental properties she owned. You need to know my mother was never charged with a crime, and the police acknowledged she was never part of my brother’s marijuana ring conspiracy. Mom’s biggest sin was allowing the adult son she loved to live next door to her. After my brother was indicted, he fled town. The government suspected she PROBABLY had allowed him to use her property illegally, and had PROBABLY been given cash earned by him illegally. As you know, asset forfeiture laws only require probable cause to seize property. Once property has been seized it is the owner’s burden to prove innocence to the government. When this happened to Mom, I thought “innocent until proven guilty” would apply in her case and she would immediately get her cash back. Trusting the government, I didn’t even hire an attorney at that time. I soon learned that under the Constitution a citizen isn’t afforded innocent until proven guilty in civil forfeiture cases. She wasn’t considered innocent and the government didn’t have to prove anything. The $70,000 they took from mom was mostly old bills dated from the 60’s and 70’s and was covered with mold and mildew. The safe was rusted shut and had to be drilled open. Tragically, the FBI did not keep her cash in an evidence locker, but deposited her money into a bank, co-mingling it with other people’s money and thus destroying her evidence and proof of innocence.

The morning government agents banged on Mom’s door telling her they were there to seize her home, they included the local police, County Sheriff’s Dept., U.S. Marshall’s Service, several FBI agents, and IRS agents (about 20 in all). All this force to take some property from one, innocent, unarmed, law-abiding 70 year old, 85 pound woman. I immediately called our family attorney and he met me at Mom’s house. It had previously been said to me by an agent, “They want to take everything your mother has a make her tell what she knows about your brother, and maybe it will make him come back, too !”

When I arrived at Mom’s home she was in a daze. One agent had a camcorder going on her as she sat there in her old negligee at 8:00 AM. She said she asked the agents where she was suppose to live and was told, “I don’t care where you go, but you have a half-hour to pack up and get out !” Thankfully, our attorney was able to reach an agreement that allowed Mom to “rent” her own house from the government until the case went to trial. The horror of the forfeiture squad invading her home still brings regular nightmares to mom 6 years later. I did everything in my power to convince the government agents that they were making a huge mistake and that mom was not a criminal. To them that didn’t matter. Since they COULD seize her property, they did. An agent said to me, “When I first took this case to my boss, he said not even to mess around with it, that it was just another stupid marijuana case, until I showed him how many assets we could get!” I spent many, many cooperative and truthful hours trying to convince them that this was insane, and finally realized it would cost me more going to trial than her properties were worth. I eventually made a settlement with them and Mom got to keep a little of what she worked her whole life for. They took most of it, including her dignity and love for our government.

I am here for my mother and our Country. It is too late to help her case, and besides, I had the government sign a paper that they could never bother her again. I want to make sure they can never do this to another mother with a bad kid. I have been on this crusade since I saw a Readers Digest article in 1992, titled, Is It Police Work or Plunder, about nationwide forfeiture abuse and Congressman Hyde’s effort to reform this law. I bought a computer, joined an Online Internet Service and have been e-mailing thousands of unaware citizens to educate them about this barbaric civil forfeiture law.

Nobody thinks it is right when they learn how it is used, except prosecutors who do not want a proof provision in the law. One prosecutor told me, “Citizens don’t need a proof provision, those in charge of a case are perfectly capable of determining who is guilty!” That statement, I was told by a Constitutional law professor, is the definition of tyranny. I love the America I knew growing up in the 40’s and 50’s, but am scared to death of the police state this Country could become with more and more laws allowing forfeiture. IT HAS TO STOP. Our Founding Fathers put their lives on the line against tyranny and cavalier attitudes. In my opinion, no real or personal property should be forfeited except in criminal cases. Eliminate this ridiculous, insane, corrupting law, or re-write it to include meaningful proof, fairness and compassion. It is ruining people’s lives and is just another national disgrace.

Thank you.

Note: Mom eventually took her own life over this matter. End of testimony

Now please read the rest of this Book more closely or go back and refresh your memory before reading further. This could very well happen to you. This man, speaking for his mother has no idea he is talking to the proverbial foxes guarding the status quo to see that it is kept intact and paying lip service to correct what they know cannot be corrected unless the President declares, #1 a repeal of 12 Stat 319. #2 a repeal of 12 USC 95 (a) & (b). #3 A repeal of section 5 (b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act as written in 48 Stat 1.]


Having shown that the United States being actually engaged in civil war, —- in other words, having become a belligerent power, without formal declaration of war,— it is important to ascertain what some of the rights of belligerents are, according to the law of nations. It will be observed that the law of nations is above the constitution of any government; and no people would be justified by its peculiar constitution in violating rights of other nations. With this caveat, it will be desirable to state some of the rights of belligerents. Either belligerent may seize and confiscate all the property of the enemy, on land or on the sea, including real as well as personal estate.

[This is exactly what they did to the woman above and hundreds of thousands of people in this country every year]


Some persons have questioned whether title passes in this country by capture or confiscation, by reason of some of the limiting clauses of the constitution; and others have gone so far as to assert that all the proceedings under martial law, such as capturing the enemy’s property, imprisonment of spies and traitors, and seizures of articles contraband of war [all drug related or other avenues the government of 1999 uses, whether guilty or not to seize such property], and suspending the habeas corpus, are in violation of the constitution, which declares that no man shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, Art. V; that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, Art. V; that unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be made, Art IV; that freedom of speech and of the press shall not be abridged, Art. I; and that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, Art. II.


If these rules are applicable to a state of war, then capture of property is illegal, and does not pass a title; no defensive war can be carried on; . . . Not a gun can be fired constitutionally, because it might deprive a rebel foe of his life without due process of law — firing a gun not being deemed “due process of law.” If these rules above cited have any application in time of war, the United States cannot protect each of the States from invasion by citizens of other States, nor against domestic violence;


The clauses which have been cited from the amendments to the constitution were intended as declarations of the rights of peaceful and loyal citizens, and safeguards in the administration of justice by the civil tribunals; but it was necessary, in order to give the government the means of defending itself against domestic and foreign enemies, to maintain its authority and dignity, and to enforce obedience to its laws, that it should have unlimited war powers. The right of war and the rights of peace cannot coexist. One must yield to the other. Martial law and civil law cannot operate at the same time and place upon the same subject matter. Hence the constitution was framed with full recognition of that fact; it protects the citizen in peace and war; but his rights enjoyed under the constitution are different from those to which he is entitled in time of war.

[Now one must remember, that present day law is in reality military law that allows the civilian authorities to apply the rules of war upon belligerents. One must also remember that the United States has declared war upon its citizens by the act of 12 Stat 319 and 48 Stat 1, which, to this day, has never been repealed by Congress. The fact that Title 12 USC 95 (a) & (b) has declared the people of America “public enemies” still exists, proves it is a “domestic war” upon which President Roosevelt acted at the behest of the Federal Reserve. We have become the belligerent enemy to the belligerent United States. Mind you, we did not declare war against the United States, rather the United States declared an imperfect war upon the people of America. There is no public declaration as if we were a foreign power like Japan was in 1942. No, there is a subtle declaration in 48 Stat 1 and 12 Stat 319. People find this hard to believe until they read for themselves all these statutes and United States Codes and regulations I have quoted herein. The law speaks for itself quite clearly, and after reading them, it would be impossible for anyone to deny this fact. Belligerents we are, and with that in mind I return to the Book.]


None of these rights, guaranteed to peaceful citizens, by the constitution belong to them after they have become belligerents against their own government. They thereby forfeit all protection under that sacred charter which they have thus sought to overthrow and destroy. [People, this was the ploy that the Roosevelt and Lincoln governments used to reign over the people of America. They reversed the roles as they declared the people the enemy, not the other way around]. One party to a contract cannot break it and at the same time hold the other to perform it. It is true that if the government elects to treat them as subjects and to hold them liable only to penalties for violating statutes, it must concede to all of them all the legal rights and privileges which other citizens would have when under similar accusations;.


Nothing in the constitution interferes with the belligerent right of confiscation of enemy property. [Always remember people, that you are the “enemy” declared by your wonderful government.] The right to confiscate is derived from a state of war. It is one of the rights of war. The right of confiscation belongs to the government as the necessary consequence of the power and duty of making war — OFFENSIVE or defensive. [EMPHASIS Mine]. If authority were needed to support the right of confiscation, it may be found in 3 Dallas, 227; Vit.lib.iii., ch. 8, sect. 188; lib., ch. 9, sect. 161; Smith v Mansfield, cranch, 306-7; Cooper v Telfair, 4 Dallas; Brown v. U.S., 8 Cranch 110, 228, 229. From the foregoing authorities, it is evident that the government has a right, as a belligerent power, to capture or to confiscate any and all the personal property of the enemy; that there is nothing in the constitution which limits or controls the exercise of that right; and that capture in war, or confiscation by law, passes a complete title to the property taken; and that, if judicial condemnation of enemy property be sought, in order to pass title to it by formal decree of courts, by mere seizure, and without capture, the confiscation must have been declared by act of Congress, a mere declaration of war not being ex vi termini sufficient for that purpose.

[This is exactly how and why the IRS operate, the BATF, the DEA, and all those other alphabet agencies of government, right down to child services. And, remember the IRS is nothing but a private collector hired by the IRS District Director to collect for the private Federal Reserve System, the debt owed to the International Monetary Fund by the United States, that caused you to become the “enemies” in 1933 by 48 Stat 1, which was written by the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve. You also must remember at the beginning of this book, it is said by Whiting, that minors can be taken in time of war from their belligerent parent, or have you forgotten so soon?]


In addition to the right of confiscating personal property of the enemy, a state of war also confers upon the government other not less important belligerent rights, and among them, the right to seize and hold conquered territory by military force, and of instituting and maintaining military government over it, thereby suspending in part, or in whole, the ordinary civil administration. The exercise of this right has been sanctioned by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of California, Cross v Harrison, 16 How 164-190. And it is founded upon well-established doctrines of the law of nations. No citizen, whether loyal or rebel, is deprived of any right guaranteed to him in the constitution by reason of his subjection to martial law, because martial law, when in force, is constitutional law.


“Property of persons residing in the enemy’s country is deemed, in law, hostile, and subject to condemnation without any evidence As to the opinions or predilections of the owner.” If he is the subject of a neutral, or a citizen of one of the belligerent States, and has expressed no disloyal sentiments towards his country, still his residence in the enemy’s country impresses upon his property, engaged in commerce and found upon the ocean, a hostile character, and subjects it to condemnation. This familiar principle of law is sanctioned in the highest courts of England and of the United States, and has been decided to apply to cases of civil as well as of foreign war.


While war is raging, many of the rights held sacred by the constitution — rights which cannot be violated by any acts of Congress — may and must be suspended and held in abeyance.

[The following proves that you never owned your property and if you did it can still be taken, evidence the woman’s plight above. So much for the argument that even the King may not enter your house although the cold, wind, rain , etc. etc. may. And so much for the argument that you are sovereign and the government takes a back seat to your wishes. Remember, reader that you have been declared the “enemy” by those officials of government, namely, Congress and the president, who you claim to be your servants. The confiscation acts have not been repealed and have been in force since 1787.]


The belligerent right of the government to confiscate enemy’s real estate, situated in this country, can hardly admit of a question. The title to no inconsiderable part of the real estate in each of the original States of the Union, rests upon the validity of the confiscation acts, passed by our ancestors against loyal adherents to the crown. Probably none of these States failed to pass and apply these laws. English and American acts of confiscation were recognized by the laws of both countries, and their operation modified by treaties; their validity was never denied. The only authority which either of the States or colonies ever had for passing such laws was derived from the fact that they were the belligerents.


“It belongs exclusively to the President to judge when the exigency arises in which he has the authority, under the constitution, to call forth the militia and his decision is exclusive on all other person.” *Such is the language of Chief Justice Taney, in delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court, in Martin v Mott, 12 Wheaton, 19

[Jumping to Chapter five and reading what the true meaning of the constitution is, will be shocking to those that think what they read is what they read and cannot infer any other meaning. No so, because the constitution is couched in technical language, NOT common sense meaning. This was shown when I quoted Article I Section 8 clauses.]


The language of the constitution is peculiar; it is technical; and it shows on the face of it an intention to limit the technical operation of attainders, not to limit the scope or extent of legislative penalties. If the authors of the constitution meant to say that Congress should pass no law punishing treason by attainder, or by its consequences, viz., forfeiture of estate, or corruption of blood, they would, in plain terms, have said so; and there would have been an end to the penalties of attainder, as there was an end to bills of attainder. Instead of saying, “Congress shall have the power to declare the punishment of treason, but shall not impose the penalties of attainder upon the offender,” they said, “Congress shall have the power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted.” This phraseology has reference only to technical effect of attainder. The “working of forfeitures” is a phrase used by lawyers to show the legal result or effect which arises from a certain state of facts. Note. Since the publication of the seventh edition, it has been decided by Underwood, J., in the Eastern District Court of the U.S. for Virginia, in the case of U.S. v Latham, first, that the Confiscation Act above cited is authorized by the Constitution; second, that by the terms of that Act (dated July 17th, 1862, ch. 195), as modified by the joint resolution of July 27th, 1862 (No. 63), the punishment of treason is not limited to forfeiture of the life estate of the offender, and is not required to be so limited by the Constitution; but the forfeiture extends to the entire estate in fee simple.

[How do the U.S. government or the States seemingly get around this attainder or ex post facto law when; seizing property of the farmer; or from people whose land they want for national parks; wet land violations they concoct; seizures of all kinds of property under “drug war laws” whether innocent or not without due process? The reasons are found in War Powers, which are constitutional. If you are not found guilty of treason the validity of any statute passed by Congress, or for that matter the State legislatures cannot be questioned, only if your are so charged, and, therefore, what you thought was a protection does not become a protection under the constitutional operation of military rule by civil authorities under War Powers Acts. You will understand by what is stated by Whiting as follows.]


This act is not a bill of attainder, because it does not punish the offender in any instance with corruption of blood, and it does not declare him, by act of the legislature, guilty of treason, inasmuch as the offender’s guilt must be duly proved and established by judicial proceedings before he can be sentenced. It is not ex post facto law, as it declares no act committed prior to the time when the law goes into operation to be a crime, or to be punishable as such. It provides for no attainder of treason, and therefore none of the penal consequences which might have otherwise have followed them from such attainder.


If the death penalty is not inflicted on the guilty, and if he be not accused of treason, no question as to the validity of the statute could arise under this clause of the constitution limiting the effect of attainders for treason. No objection could be urged against its validity on the ground of its forfeiting of confiscating all the property of the offender, or of its depriving him of liberty by imprisonment, or of it exiling him from this country. . . .But the crime punished by section 6 is not the crime of treason; and whether there be or be not a limitation to the power of the legislature to punish that crime, there is no limit to its power to punish the crime described in this section,*. See Note, page 111 United States v Latham. Though treason is the highest political crime known to the codes of law, yet wide spread and savage rebellion is still a higher crime against society; . . .

[So now you know that treason is ONLY a POLITICAL crime, how is it that we, the people of America, have become the enemies of the POLITICAL establishment? The answer is very simple after reading my book The New History of America. The political aristocracy who wrote the Constitution did not intend for the masses to take part and become the sovereigns you think you are. No, neither you nor your ancestors were ever party to the contract called the Constitution of any of the colonies nor of the United States. I have quoted the case in my New History of America which I quote only a small part here,

“to this: that the States, in making the Constitution, intended to give up the power of self preservation.”

Lastly, the Court at page 491, said this of the People who made the constitutions:

“The people of the States who made the Constitution, considered themselves as the sovereign, and the Government as the subject. They were the principal — it the agent. That this is also true none will dispute.”

We all know it is not us people who made the Constitutions but the select few as stated by the Court at page 520, to wit:

“But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain. If they do they are entitled to redress. Or they may waive the right to complain.” END OF QUOTE.

The only way to control the masses is to institute constitutional war powers to institute a different, but constitutional, set of parameters upon the people. Once the war powers are adopted they can change the statutes to fit the ends they want to achieve. They do it slowly so as to not give a clue to the masses. The war powers act of 1862 allowed the President and Congress to constitutionally change the statutes that guaranteed the people, in juries, to rule on both the law and the facts. Not only were the statutes changed that took away the power to judge the law but it also took away the right to be judged by your peers. The meaning of peers will be very evident when reading the next part of Whiting’s Book and shows why today you have no such protections because the enemy can have no such protections. Even to the point that the jury is not aware of the slow indoctrination over the years that they really do have the right to judge the law, but not under the Rule of Necessity in the Rules of military Rule.]


The jury are by law judges of the law and the fact, according to the opinion of many eminent lawyers and judges. Whether this be so or not, their verdict, being upon the law and the fact, in a criminal case, they become in effect judges of law and fact. Suppose that a judge presiding at the trial is honest and loyal, and that the jury is composed of men who believe that loyalty to the State is paramount to loyalty to the United States; or that the States had, and have, a lawful right to secede from the Union. Whatever of the opinions of the judge presiding in the United States courts might be on these questions, he would have no power to root out from the jury their honest belief, that obedience to their own laws of their own seceding State is not, and cannot be, treason. [Now you are going to see how they have destroyed the jury to gain a conviction in 99 percent of the cases, say IRS cases, so that the courts control the outcome under the doctrine of the Military Rules of War, and the jury be damned.] The first step towards securing a verdict would be to destroy the belief of the jury in these doctrines [sounds like jury tampering] of State rights, paramount State sovereignty, and the right of secession. To decide the issue, according to the conscientious judgment of the jurymen upon the facts and the law, would require them to find a verdict against the United States.


But this is not the only difficulty in the operation of this statute. The grand jury and the petit jury are to be drawn from those who are neighbors and possibly friends of the traitor. [remember, a traitor is a “political” enemy as defined by the Solicitor himself and you are a “political enemy” today] The accused has the further advantage of knowing, before the time of trial, the names of all the jurors, and of all the witnesses to be produced against him; he has the benefit of counsel, and the process of the United States to compel the attendance of witnesses in his behalf.* Statute of April 30, 1790, Sec.29. How improbable is it that any jury of twelve men will be found to take away the lives or estates of their associates, when some of the jurymen themselves, or their friends and relatives or debtors, are involved in the same offense!

[now we are going to get to the meat of jurisdiction in IRS cases. I have stated all along and written about it extensively that all revenue is under admiralty, but very few will listen. Well read the next statement of the Solicitor.]


Those section of the act of 1862, empowering government to seize rebel property, real, personal, and mixed, and apply it to the use of the army, [today it is the local police using seized property] to secure the condemnation and sale of seized property, so as to make it available, and to authorize proceedings in rem, conformably to proceedings in admiralty or revenue cases, are of a different and far more effective character.

[Since I have been talking about these acts of seizure and so has the Solicitor, I think it only fair to produce those codified statutes that were born by 12 Stat 319 and never repealed, showing that the war powers and military rule still exists. If the war against the people, by the government was over, these laws would have been repealed.

Notes on Title 50, Section 212 SOURCE (R.S. Sec. 5308.) CODIFICATION R.S. Sec. 5308 derived from act Aug. 6, 1861, ch. 60, Sec. 1, 12 Stat. 319.

Title 50 Sec. 212. Confiscation of property employed to aid insurrection Whenever during any insurrection against the Government of the United States, after the President shall have declared by proclamation that the laws of the United States are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the power vested in the marshals by law, any person, or his agent, attorney, or employee, purchases or acquires, sells or gives, any property of whatsoever kind or description, with intent to use or employ the same, or suffers the same to be used or employed in aiding, abetting, or promoting such insurrection or resistance to the laws, or any person engaged therein; or being the owner of any such property, knowingly uses or employs, or consents to such use or employment of the same, all such property shall be lawful subject of prize and capture wherever found; and it shall be the duty of the President to cause the same to be seized, confiscated, and condemned.

Notes on Title 50, Section 213 SOURCE (R.S. Sec. 5309; Feb. 27, 1877, ch. 69, Sec. 1, 19 Stat. 253; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, Sec. 291, 36 Stat. 1167.) -COD- CODIFICATION R.S. Sec. 5309 derived from act Aug. 6, 1861, ch. 60, Sec. 2,12 Stat. 319. Act Mar. 3, 1911, conferred the powers and duties of the former circuit courts upon the district courts. AMENDMENTS 1877 – Act Feb. 27, 1877, inserted ”may” after ”any district in which the same”.

Sec. 213. Jurisdiction of confiscation proceedings Such prizes and capture shall be condemned in the district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the amount, or in admiralty in any district in which the same may be seized, or into which they may be taken and proceedings first instituted.

Notes on Title 50, Section 215 SOURCE (R.S. Sec. 5311; June 25, 1948, ch. 646, Sec. 1, 62 Stat. 909.) CODIFICATION R.S. Sec. 5311 derived from act Aug. 6, 1861, ch. 60, Sec. 3, 12 Stat. 319. -CHANGE- CHANGE OF NAME Act June 25, 1948, eff. Sept. 1, 1948, substituted ”United States attorney” for ”attorney of the United States”. See section 541 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, and Historical and Revision Notes thereunder.

Sec. 215. Institution of confiscation proceedings The Attorney General, or the United States attorney for any judicial district in which such property may at the time be, may institute the proceedings of condemnation, and in such case they shall be wholly for the benefit of the United States; or any person may file an information with such attorney, in which case the proceedings shall be for the use of such informer and the United States in equal parts.

Now this is not the only place that seizure is found. I now move to 28 USC.


Admiralty and maritime rules of practice (which included libel procedures) were superseded, and civil and admiralty procedures in United States district courts were unified, effective July 1, 1966, see rule 1 and Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims, Appendix to this title.

Sec. 2461. Mode of recovery (a) Whenever a civil fine, penalty or pecuniary forfeiture is prescribed for the violation of an Act of Congress without specifying the mode of recovery or enforcement thereof, it may be recovered in a civil action. (b) Unless otherwise provided by Act of Congress, whenever a forfeiture of property is prescribed as a penalty for violation of an Act of Congress and the seizure takes place on the high seas or on navigable waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, such forfeiture may be enforced by libel in admiralty but in cases of seizures on land the forfeiture may be enforced by a proceeding by libel which shall conform as near as may be to proceedings in admiralty.

Sec. 2462. Time for commencing proceedings Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, an action, suit or proceeding for the enforcement of any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise, shall not be entertained unless commenced within five years from the date when the claim first accrued if, within the same period, the offender or the property is found within the United States in order that proper service may be made thereon.

Sec. 2463. Property taken under revenue law not repleviable All property taken or detained under any revenue law of the United States shall not be repleviable, but shall be deemed to be in the custody of the law and subject only to the orders and decrees of the courts of the United States having jurisdiction thereof. SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS This section is referred to in title 26 section 7434.

Sec. 2464. Security; special bond (a) Except in cases of seizures for forfeiture under any law of the United States, whenever a warrant of arrest or other process in rem is issued in any admiralty case, the United States marshal shall stay the execution of such process, or discharge the property arrested if the process has been levied, on receiving from the respondent or claimant of the property a bond or stipulation in double the amount claimed by the libellant, with sufficient surety, to be approved by the judge of the district court where the case is pending, or, in his absence, by the collector of the port, conditioned to answer the decree of the court in such case. Such bond or stipulation shall be returned to the court, and judgment or decree thereon, against both the principal and sureties, may be secured at the time of rendering the decree in the original case. The owner of any vessel may deliver to the marshal a bond or stipulation, with sufficient surety, to be approved by the judge of the district court, conditioned to answer the decree of such court in all or any cases that are brought thereafter in such court against the vessel. Thereupon the execution of all such process against such vessel shall be stayed so long as the amount secured by such bond or stipulation is at least double the aggregate amount claimed by libellants in such suits which are begun and pending against such vessel. Similar judgments or decrees and remedies may be had on such bond or stipulation as if a special bond or stipulation had been filed in each of such suits. (b) The court may make necessary orders to carry this section into effect, particularly in giving proper notice of any such suit. Such bond or stipulation shall be endorsed by the clerk with a minute of the suits wherein process is so stayed. Further security may be required by the court at any time. (c) If a special bond or stipulation in the particular case is given under this section, the liability as to said case on the general bond or stipulation shall cease. The parties may stipulate the amount of the bond or stipulation for the release of a vessel or other property to be not more than the amount claimed in the libel, with interest, plus an allowance for libellant’s costs. In the event of the inability or refusal of the parties to so stipulate, the court shall fix the amount, but if not so fixed then a bond shall be required in the amount prescribed in this section. Security; special bond

Sec. 2465. Return of property to claimant; certificate of reasonable cause; liability for wrongful seizure

Upon the entry of judgment for the claimant in any proceeding to condemn or forfeit property seized under any Act of Congress, such property shall be returned forthwith to the claimant or his agent; but if it appears that there was reasonable cause for the seizure, the court shall cause a proper certificate thereof to be entered and the claimant shall not, in such case, be entitled to costs, nor shall the person who made the seizure, nor the prosecutor, be liable to suit or judgment on account of such suit or prosecution.


This section is referred to in title 26 section 7328.

I now proceed to IRS cases to prove the above and what Whiting stated about revenue and admiralty being the same jurisdiction for collection and seizure. He did say that under the war powers “in rem” proceedings are used. His reasoning was adopted by the Supreme Court in 1863.

United States v. One 1966 Chevrolet Pickup Truck, 56 F.R.D. 450 (1972); “A proceeding in rem is governed by the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims, a supplement to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. (hereinafter Supplemental Rules), See Rule A, Supplemental Rules;”

And this next case, United States of America, Libelant v $3976.62 In Currency, One 1960 Ford Station Wagon, 37 F.R.D. 564; Key 31. “Although presumably for purpose of obtaining jurisdiction, action for forfeiture under Internal Revenue Laws is commenced as proceeding in admiralty, after jurisdiction is obtained proceeding takes on the character of civil action at law, and at least at such stage of proceedings, Rules of Civil Procedure control.” “On August 14, 1964 a `libel’ of information’ (see Supreme Court Admiralty Rule 21; 28 U.S.C. 1355; 26 U.S.C. 7323) was filed by the United States Attorney.” Ibid 565.

Further proof is gleaned from Benedict on Admiralty 7th Edition. Quoting from Benedict on Admiralty, 1850; “Its necessary effect [the Act] was, however, to start the courts on that system of practice, and really to impose upon them, in admiralty and maritime cases, the civil law practice, as that under which they must continue to administer justice, even after the expiration of that act, until further provision could be made.”

Section 105 states; “The Purpose of the Constitutional Grant — The Essential Harmony of the Maritime Law. The grand purpose of the Constitution was to unify the several States [several meaning separate], the whole people, in their national, international, and interstate relations and all other purposes were subordinate and ancillary to this.”

Section 123 states; “The commission to the Governor as Vice-Admiral was very full, granting, in language so clear that it cannot be misunderstood, an admiralty jurisdiction as wide and beneficial as the most zealous supporters of the English Admiralty ever claimed for it.”

This is the type of court that exists today and why we cannot bring a pure Article of the Bill of Rights argument in a contract court of the law-merchant in their civil law under war powers act of 1862. Benedict states at Section 5 that, ” “* * *the civil law was held to be the law of admiralty, and the course of proceedings in admiralty, closely resembled the civil law practice.”

Remember in 28 USC 2461 it states as near as may be to admiralty?

Revenue comes under commerce and is basic to the jurisdiction of the admiralty/maritime court. Evidence the fact every judge states you can’t bring the constitution in his court. You can’t bring in the Seventh Article of the Bill of Rights. Why? Because it is evident after reading Benedict on The American Admiralty Its Jurisdiction and Practice, 1850, Chapter XIII section 195, to wit: “So the seventh amendment is limited to suits at common law, which does not include either suits of equity, or of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction”. The American people are not under common law or any other law but Emergency War Powers.

American Ins. Co. v Canter, 1 Pet. 511, 545 (1828). “A case in admiralty does not, in fact, arise under the Constitution or Laws of the United States.”

Most people would not understand why such a case would not come under the constitution. The reason being when in war, and proceeding in admiralty, International law and treaty law takes over. It is stated in Chapter two of Whiting’s Book that the Law of Nations, which is International law, rules over the Constitutions. One of the International laws is that of Treaty with the United Nations. So try as you might to oust the United States from the UN treaty, as long as we are the enemy and the United States the belligerent power running the show you will never, under international law that we live under, obtain your goals.

Benedict states at section 204; “In such cases, the question before the court, is not whether the court has jurisdiction, but whether the party have right; it is not a question in abatement, but a question of the merits of the action. `If the cause is a maritime cause, subject to admiralty cognizance, jurisdiction is complete over the person as well as over the ship. It must in its nature be complete, for it cannot be confined to one of the remedies on the contract, when the contract itself is within its cognizance’.” The quote he used is from 12 Wheat 460; 7 Howard 729 Boyd’s proceedings.

Whether the party have the right? Yes. As enemies of the State, you have no rights that you call unalienable. And the case for that is called, The Sally, 8 Cranch 382, 384, wherein the court stated; “By the general law of prize, property engaged in the illegal intercourse with the enemy is deemed enemy property. It is of no consequence whether it belong to an ally or a citizen; the traffic stamps it with a hostile character, and attaches to it all the penal consequences of enemy ownership”. In The Shark, (1862)page 218 the court states, “All persons doing business with the enemy, whether citizens of the United States or citizens of the other belligerent nation or neutrals, are as to their property to be deemed enemies.”

Therefore, with all this knowledge as to why you are deemed the enemy, this case called The Julia, (1813) falls right into what Whiting stated in 1864 about the enemy having no rights.

“No contract is considered valid as between enemies, at least so far as to give them a remedy in the courts of either government, and they have, in the language of the civil law, no ability to sustain a persona standi in judicio.”

Now you know why people charged under the revenue laws that are in court have a 99 percent chance of losing; have no right to present the law or regulations to the jury, as that has been eliminated slowly since 1867, to claim and show a defense; are 99 percent of the time denied all motions that would have to be ruled in their favor and when having a claim against the United States they always institute a Rule 12 (b) (6) that claims they have not stated a cause in which relief can be granted. This is so because the enemy in rebellion, the cash cow of the United States, the so called “tax protester,” can never overcome. The IRS can seize property of all types without any due process in the courts before they take the property as explained in Whiting’s Book below.]

Some persons have turned their attention to certain passages in the amendments relating, as was supposed, to this subject. Let us examine them:

Article IV. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.”

This amendment merely declares that the right of being secure against UNREASONABLE seizures or arrests shall not be violated. It does not declare that NO ARRESTS shall be made. Will any one deny that is reasonable to arrest or capture the person of the public enemy? If all arrests, reasonable or unreasonable, were prohibited, public safety would be disregarded in favor of the rights of individuals. Not only may military, but even civil, arrests be made when reasonable. Emphasis the Solicitor’s.

[48 Statutes at Large 1, very specifically declared the people of America “public enemies”, whether of the banking cartel or otherwise, it was already done by Lincoln. Now to prove “public enemies” have no rights that are protected by the infamous Bill of Rights is this passage in the Book.]


The Fifth article of the amendments to the constitution provides that — [I let the reader obtain a copy as it is stated here] This article has no reference to the rights of citizens under the exigencies of war, but relates only to their rights in time of peace.


That military arrests are deemed necessary for public [definition for “public” means government only] safety by Congress is shown by the act of March 3, 1863, ch.81, wherein it is provided that no person arrested by authority of the President of the United States shall be discharged from imprisonment so long as the war lasts, and the President shall see fit to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

[Yes, the habeas corpus is a PRIVILEGE and NOT a right, and it is granted by government in time of peace. It can and has, for all intents and purposes, been suspended. This is evident by the fact that between 1957 and about 1990 only 3 percent of all habeas corpus have been granted. Now, all this material so far has proven one thing. That is, the people of America who thought they were sovereign; who thought government was their servant; who thought the constitution was their doing; who thought the Bill of Rights were written for them; who thought the constitution was there to protect them; who thought that white citizens were always above the blacks; who thought the term “citizen” did not show up until after the Fourteenth Amendment; who never realized that blacks voted, held office, held military commissions before the 1787 Constitution; who did not realize that the 1787 Constitution enslaved the black people by considering them property by the institution of Article I, Section 2, Clause 3; who thought the constitution was over all treaty law or International law of nations; who thought we were living in times of peace; who do not believe they are considered “public enemies; who believe that they are free, are sorely mistaken. So let us move along in the Book and destroy some more myths. One has to remember that this Book was written during Civil war and talks about military law, the principles apply to this very day, even though you do not see uniformed officers behind the desks of the alphabet agencies of government, although you do see quasi military presence in the form of a police officer that is termed “law enforcement.” They are no longer peace officers.]


The laws of war, military and martial, written and unwritten, founded on the necessities of government, are sanctioned by the Constitution and laws, and recognized as valid by the Supreme Court of the United States. Arrests made under the laws of war are neither arbitrary nor without legal justification. In Cross v Harrison, Judge Wayne, delivering the opinion, (16 Howard, 189, 190,) says:

Early in 1847 the President, as constitutional commander-in-chief of the army and navy, authorized the military and naval commanders of our forces in California to exercise the belligerent rights of a conqueror, and to form a civil government for the conquered country, and to impose duties on imports and tonnage as military contributions for the support of government and of the army which had the conquest in possession. No one can doubt that these orders of the President and the action of our army and navy commanders in California, in conformity with them, were according to the law of arms &c.”

So in Fleming v Page, (9 Howard, 615,) Chief Justice Taney says:

“The person who acted in the character of collector in this instance, acted as such under the authority of the military commander and in obedience to his orders; and the regulations he adopted were not those prescribed by law, but by the President in his character as commander-in-chief.”

It is established by these opinions that military orders, in accordance with martial law or the laws of war, though they may be contrary to municipal laws; and the use of the usual means of enforcing such orders by military power, including capture, arrest, imprisonment, or the destruction of life and property, [such as those in the Waco incident and others throughout the country] are authorized and sustained upon the firm basis of martial law, which is, in time of war, [and national emergency that we have been living under all our lives] constitutional law.

[Turning to Whiting’s separate section Titled, The Return of the Rebellious States to the Union, we see the mindset of government, our enemy, as so aptly stated by Albert J. Nock in his book, Our Enemy, The State. It shows that the people of the south and the north became enemies of the United States, AKA Congress, because the southern states could not be admitted back into the Union and have disabilities different to the north. So Congress overrode President Johnson’s veto of the War Powers after Johnson decreed the War Powers over, and then Congress declared that in order to have all states on equal footing they would continue the emergency war powers to include ALL the people in the States of the Union to be enemies, subject to the Confiscation Acts of 12 Stat 319. The section on Reconstruction of the Union shows that the southern States were forced into submitting to the United States, thereby showing, for all to see, that the Constitution is of “No Authority” as stated by eminent Jurist Lysander Spooner.

The south had sought to be free from the Union as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, that whenever government ceased to be what it was supposed to be, they had the right to secede. Such was not the case and shows the fraud of the Constitution for what it is. For if the abuses could not be remedied the South sought to only do what the Constitution stated, and that was to form a new government. They did not want to overthrow the old government. This also proves that the Treaty of 1783 still is supreme over the constitution which the treaty created. This I brought forth in my book The New History of America by quoting from the First Circuit Court of the United States operating in North Carolina in 1796.] fallacy.htm

My Favorite chapter from Montgomery’s book, “The United States is still a British Colony”, which is a fact..

March 22, 2015


JULY 20, 1998

I would like to start by thanking Pete Stern and The Informer for their continued research and dedication to the American people. Pete deserves special thanks for finding an annotated copy of the Definitive 1783 Treaty of Peace,The Society wherein he found reference to the Supreme Court case, for Propagating the Gospel &c v. New Haven,quote from the 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489. I will share this case and the Chamberlin case below.

The Newhaven case is a true God-send, it thoroughly confirms The Informer’s research and my own findings that we are subjects bearing financial obligation for the debt owed to the king of England and his heirs and successors, as well as the main party of interest, the Pope. Which confirms what I said in the following quotes from “The United States Is Still A British Colony”:-

“YIELDlNG AND PAYING yearly, to us, our heirs and Successors, for the same, the yearly Rent of Twenty Marks of Lawful money of England, at the Feast of All Saints, yearly, forever, The First payment thereof to begin and be made on the Feast of All Saints which shall be in the year of Our Lord One thousand six hundred Sixty and five; AND also, the fourth part of all Gold and Silver Ore which, with the limits aforesaid, shall, from time to time, happen to be found.” (The Feast of All Saints was celebrated on November 1 each year.) The Carolina Charter, 1663.

“And provided further, that nothing herein contained shall affect the titles or possessions of individuals holding or claiming under the laws heretofore in force, or grants heretofore made by the late King George II, or his predecessors, or the late lords proprietors, or any of them.” Declaration of Rights 1776, North Carolina Constitution.

I have been declaring this in spite of being slammed by pro-Constitutionalist patriots, who refuse to accept the facts. The king is still head of America Inc., the author of its Charters, and the creator of his cestui que trust. The king continues to be the benefactor along with his heirs and successors of the largest corporation in the history of the world. The Pope as well is co-benefactor with the king, thanks to the king’s concessions of May 15, 1213 to the Pope.

“We wish it to be known to all of you, through this our charter, furnished with our seal, that inasmuch as we had offended in many ways God and our mother the holy church, and in consequence are known to have very much needed the divine mercy, and can not offer anything worthy for making due satisfaction to God and to the church unless we humiliate ourselves and our kingdoms: we, wishing to humiliate ourselves for Him who humiliated Himself for us unto death, the grace of the Holy Spirit inspiring, not induced by force or compelled by fear, but of our own good and spontaneous will and by the common counsel of our barons, do offer and freely concede to God and His holy apostles Peter and Paul and to our mother the holy Roman church, and to our lord pope Innocent and to his Catholic successors, the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom Ireland, with all their rights and appurtenances, for the remission of our own sins and of those of our whole race as well for the living as for the dead; and now receiving and holding them, as it were a vassal, from God and the Roman church, in the presence of that prudent man Pandulph, subdeacon and of the household of the lord pope, we perform and swear fealty for them to him our aforesaid lord pope Innocent, and his catholic successors and the Roman church, according to the form appended; and in the presence of the lord pope, if we shall be able to come before him, we shall do liege homage to him; binding our successors aid our heirs by our wife forever, in similar manner to perform fealty and show homage to him who shall be chief pontiff at that time, and to the Roman church without demur.” Concessions of May 15, 1213 to the Pope.

The States and it’s inhabitants claim this land as theirs, patriots claim the have allodial title to the land. How can this be when they never owned it to begin with?

“But this State had no title to the territory prior to the title of the King of Great Britain and his subjects, nor did it ever claim as lord paramount to them. This State was not the original grantor to them, nor did they ever hold by any kind of tenure under the State, or owe it any allegiance or other duties to which an escheat is annexed. How then can it be said that the lands in this case naturally result back by a kind of reversion to this State, to a source from whence it never issued, and from tenants who never held under it?” MARSHALL v. LOVELESS, 1 N.C. 412 (1801), 2 S.A. 70.

The world continues to pay the benefactors of the king’s Charters, for the king’s investment in America, via taxes. I have got news for you America, if Conquest, war or the dividing of an Empire cannot pry the possessions from a Corporate trust, the king never lost or was in danger of losing his possessions. Also, the king’s money that was in existence and being used by the states and their inhabitants, prior to the Revolutionary War, remained the king’s possessions, real property, on loan to America and her inhabitants, for which the king expected and demanded his return for his investment, under his corporate Charters and the trust he set up for his heirs and successors. Was this the only infusion of money into this Country? No. Beginning in 1778, just two years after the Revolutionary War began, the states were borrowing money from the king of France. The House of Rothschilds located in France was the money source. France (Rothschilds) continued to loan money to the U.S. government with the debt reaching 18 million dollars. This is the foothold Hamilton had over Washington during the debate on whether or not to allow the banking families to incorporate in the U.S., and float this country’s debt. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out, look back at what has happened since, and you will see this is in fact what took place.

Seems to me as a matter of law, a contract entered into voluntarily by someone voids any conflict or injury to that individual’s rights. The king always intended to retain his minerals and money, and he knew (as stated by other quotes in this article) that the barristers would retain his land under the corporate trust.

Contract Between the King and the Thirteen United States of North America, signed at Versailles July 16, 1782:-


“It is agreed and certified that the sums advanced by His Majesty to the Congress of the United States under the title of a loan, in the years 1778, 1779, 1780, 1781, and the present 1782, amount to the sum of eighteen million of livres, money of France, according to the following twenty-one receipts of the above-mentioned underwritten Minister of Congress, given in virtue of his full powers, to wit:

1. 28 February 1778 750,000
2. 19 May do 750,000
3. 3 August do 750,000
4. 1 November do 750,000 Total 3,000,000
5. 10 June 1779 250,000
6. 16 September do 250,000
7. 4 October do 250,000
8. 21 December do 250,000 Total 1,000,000
9. 29 February 1780 750,000
10. 23 May do 750,000
11. 21 June do 750,000
12. 5 October do 750,000
13. 27 November do 1,000,000 Total 4,000,000
14. 15 February 1781 750,000
15. 15 May do 750,000
16. 15 August do 750,000
17. 1 August do 1,000,000
18. 15 November do 750,000 Total 4,000,000
19. 10 April 1782 1,500,000
20. 1 July do 1,500,000
21. 5 of the same month 3,000,000 Total 6,000,000
Amounting in the whole to eighteen millions, viz 18, 000, 000.

By which receipts the said Minister has promised, in the name of Congress and in behalf of the thirteen United States, to cause to be paid and reimbursed to the royal treasury of His Majesty, on the 1st of January, 1788, at the house of his Grand Banker at Paris, the said sum of eighteen millions, money of France, with interest at five per cent per annum.”

Source: Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America. Edited by Hunter Miller Volume 2 Documents 1-40 : 1776-1818 Washington: Government Printing Office, 1931.

Notice also folks, this is just one year before the 1783 Treaty of Peace is signed, the king of France (Rothschilds) made sure his debt was protected before he signed on to the con of the millennium. The king of England’s Charter on one side, the Rothschild’s debt obligations on the other, both vying for a piece of America. The king of England for his trust, the Rothschilds for their corporate take-over and control of the king’s trust, the Pope as the main benefactor of both sides. The Pope remains even further in the background than the Rothschilds, however he stands to gain no matter what happens.

Here are a few quotes from William Manley German, in a speech to the House of Commons December 1913.

“….Referring to Canada’s bank acts: I believe the plan outlined follows the English system, a system applied to the great banks of England. Mr. White, House of Commons, December 17, 1912, in response to a question from the Honorable William Manley German. i.e. they were creating an English system which is to say a Rothschildian cartel….”

“Senator Robert L. Owen continues: “It was not very long until this information was brought to the Rothschild’s Bank, and they saw that here was a nation ready to be exploited; here was a nation setting up an example that they could issue their own money instead of the money coming through the banks.”

“The Rothschild’s Bank caused a bill to be introduced in the English Parliament, which provided that no colony of England could issue its own money.” “Thus, they had to use English money. The colonies were compelled to discard their money and mortgage themselves to the Rothchild’s Bank of England to get money.” “Then, for the first time in the history of the United States, money began to be based on debt. Benjamin Franklin stated that in one year from that date the streets of the colonies were filled with the unemployed.”

“Franklin later claimed that this was the real cause of the War of Independence. He said: “The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England and the Rothschild’s Bank took away from the colonies their money which created unemployment, dissatisfaction and debt.” William Manley German, in a speech to the House of Commons December 1913, Brigham Young University, web site Http://library.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/uk.html.

Nothing changes, the Rothschilds have always played both sides against each other, they did the same thing during the Civil War, see my research paper, “A Country Defeated In Victory, parts I & II.”

Before I go any further lets look at the facts that prove the king never lost his Corporations created by his Charters, or lands held by his Corporations, by and through the supposed loss of the Revolutionary War, or the signing of the 1783 Treaty of Peace, or the 1794 Jay Treaty.

“The property of British corporations, in this country, is protected by the sixth article of the Treaty of Peace of 1783, in the same manner as those of natural persons; and their title, thus protected, it confirmed by the ninth article of the Treaty of 1794, so that is could not be forfeited by any intermediate legislative act, or other proceeding for the defect of alienage.” The Society for Propagating the Gospel, &c v. New Haven, 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489. (Footnote-annotated, Definitive Treaty of Peace).

“The capacity of private individuals (British subjects), or of corporations, created by the crown, in this country, or in Great Britain, to hold lands or other property in this country, WAS NOT affected by the revolution. The proper courts in this country will interfere to prevent an abuse of the trusts confided to British corporations holding lands here to charitable uses, and will aid in enforcing the due execution of the trusts; but neither those courts, nor the local legislature where the lands lie, can adjudge a forfeiture of the franchises of the foreign corporation, or of its property. The property of British corporations, in this country, is protected by the 6th article of the Treaty of Peace of 1783 in the same manner as those of natural persona; and their title, thus protected, is confirmed by the 9th article of the Treaty of 1794, so that it could not be forfeited by any intermediate legislative act, or other proceeding, for the defect of alienage. The termination of a treaty, by war, DOES NOT divest rights of property already vested under it. Nor do treaties, in general, become extinguished, ipso facto, by war between the two governments. Those stipulating for a permanent arrangement of territorial, and other national rights, are, at most, suspended during the war, and revive at the peace, unless they are waived by the parties, or new and repugnant stipulations are made.” The Society, &c., v. The Town of New Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489.

The king holds the rest of the world to different standards, as does the Pope. He holds us to the king’s law on trusts and does not apply the same law to himself, so he can retain his lands and possessions, as does the Pope, under British-made International law.

“It is a familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words. The most general words that can be devised (for example, any person or persons, bodies politic or corporate) affect not him in the least, if they may tend to restrain or diminish any of his rights and interests. He may even take the benefit of any particular act, though not named. The rule thus settled respecting the British Crown is equally applicable to this government, and it has been applied frequently in the different states, and practically in the Federal courts. It may be considered as settled that so much of the royal prerogatives as belonged to the King in his capacity of parens patrioe, or universal trustee, enters as much into our political state as it does into the principles of the British Constitution.” U.S. v. Chamberlin, 219 U.S. 250 (1911), “Dollar Sav. Bank v. United States, supra”.

Do the king and the Pope have proper claims to their land holdings? No. The king’s claim would not exist accept for his barristers (lawyers), his backers, the bankers, the Pope, via his churches’ land holdings and financial backing of the early banking families. The reason I also say no, is fraud and deception are involved. How did the king come by his claim? By the Conquest of Britain by William the Conqueror in 1066, and thanks to the Pope’s partnership with England, as trustee for Rome, working inside of Britain with her Jesuit priests. Conquest does not change land held in trust. So the lands held by the Brits and trusts (wills of testament), and traditions of the father’s land going to the sons, could not be overturned by the Conquest of William the Conqueror. But even further than that, God Almighty granted to Adam and his descendants the entire earth, it was given away to Satan, but later reclaimed by Jesus Christ as the second Adam.

Just as the king held on to his possessions after the Revolutionary War for his heirs and successors, and just as conquest does not change ownership of lands and possessions held in trust. The fraud is, the king is taxing us for a trust he created, based on an earlier conquest.

“As further evidence, not that any is needed, a percentage of taxes that are paid are to enrich the king/queen of England. For those that study Title 26 you will recognize IMF, which means Individual Master File; all tax payers have one. To read one you have to be able to break their codes using file 6209, which is about 467 pages. On your IMF you will find a blocking series, which tells you what type of tax you are paying. You will probably find a 300-399 blocking series, which 6209 says is reserved. You then look up the BMF 300-399, which is the Business Master File in 6209. You would have seen prior to 1991, this was U.S.-U.K. Tax Claims, non-refile DLN. Meaning everyone is considered a business and involved in commerce and you are being held liable for a tax via a treaty between the U.S. and the U.K., payable to the U.K.. The form that is supposed to be used for this is form 8288, FIRPTA – Foreign Investment Real Property Tax Account, you won’t find many people using this form, just the 1040 form. The 8288 form can be found in the Law Enforcement Manual of the IRS, chapter 3. If you will check the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) paper, in the Department of Treasury, List of Active Information Collections, Approved Under Paperwork Reduction Act, you will find this form under OMB number 1545-0902, which says U.S. withholding tax-return for dispositions by foreign persons of U.S. real property interests-statement of withholding on dispositions, by foreign persons, of U.S. Form #8288 #8288a These codes have since been changed to read as follows; IMF 300-309, Barred Assessment, CP 55 generated valid for MFT-30, which is the code for 1040 form. IMF 310-399 reserved, the BMF 300-309 reads the same as IMF 300-309. BMF 390-399 reads U.S./U.K. Tax Treaty Claims. The long and short of it is nothing changed, the government just made it plainer, the 1040 is the payment of a foreign tax to the king/queen of England. We have been in financial servitude since the Treaty of 1783.” The United States Is Still A British Colony, part I.

It’s a big con. Only God Almighty owns the land, by grant and charter, also trust, the land is reserved for us and our use. How can you take that which does not belong to you? It is a shame we could not have learned from the American Indian, that no man owns the land.

“….In Harden v Fisher, 1 Wheat Rep. 300, which was also under the Treaty of 1794, this court held that it was not necessary for the party to show a seisin in fact, or actual possession of the land, but only that the title was in him, or his ancestors, at the time the treaty was made….” The Society, &c., v. The Town of New Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489.

“….In Terrett v. Taylor, it was stated that the dissolution of the regal government, no more destroyed the rights of the church to possess and enjoy the property which belonged to it, than it did the right of any other corporation or individual to his or its own property. In the later case, the Chief Justice, in reference to the corporation of the college, observes that it is too clear to require the support of argument, that all contracts and rights respecting property remained unchanged by the revolution; and the same sentiment was enforce, more at length, by the other judge who noticed this point in the cause….” The Society, &c., v. The Town of New Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489.

As a matter of law these treaties were written in such away they could not be overturned using civil law, so the Revolutionary War changed nothing concerning the king’s investment and creation of America Inc.

“….His lordship observes that that was a case in which the old government existed under the King’s charter, and a revolution took place, though the new government was acknowledged by this country. Yet it was held, that the property, which belonged to a corporation existing under the King’s charter, was not transferred to a body which did not exist under his authority, and, therefore, the fund in this country was considered to be bona vacantia belonging to the crown….” The Society, &c., v. The Town of New Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489.

“….The treaty of 1783 forbids all forfeitures on either side. That of 1794 provides that the citizens and subjects of both nations, holding lands (thereby strongly implying that there were no forfeitures by the revolution), shall continue to hold, according to the tenure of their estates; that they may sell and devise them; and shall not, so far as respects these lands and the legal remedies to obtain them, be considered as aliens. In the case Kelly v. Harrison, 2 Johns. cas 29., Mr. Chief Justice Kent says:” I admit the doctrine to be sound (Calvin’s case, 7 Co. 27 b.; Kirby’s Rep. 413), that the division of an empire works no forfeiture of a right previously acquired. The revolution left the demandant where she was before….” The Society, &c., v. The Town of New Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489.

I remind America what Edmond Burke said:

“….Let the colonies always keep the idea of their civil rights associated with your government — they will cling and grapple to you, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from their allegiance. But let it be once understood that your government may be one thing and their privileges another, that these two things may exist without any mutual relation — the cement is gone, the cohesion is loosened, and everything hastens to decay and dissolution. As long as you have the wisdom to keep the sovereign authority of this country as the sanctuary of liberty, the sacred temple consecrated to our common faith, wherever the chosen race and sons of England worship freedom, they will turn their faces towards you. The more they multiply, the more friends you will have, the more ardently they love liberty, the more perfect will be their obedience. Slavery they can have they may have it from Spain, they may have it from Prussia. But until you become lost to all feeling of your true interest and your natural dignity, freedom they can have from none but you. This commodity of price, of which you have the monopoly. This is the true Act of Navigation, which binds to you the commerce of the colonies, and through them secures to you the wealth of the world. Deny them this participation of freedom, and you break that sole bond which originally made, and must still preserve, the unity of the empire. . . Let us get an American revenue as we have got an American empire. English privileges have made it all that it is; English privileges alone will make it all it can be.” Edmund Burke, speech on conciliation with America, pages 71-72, March 22, 1775.

America what about that? “You have been conned” do you not understand? What will it take for you to wake up? king35.htm

James Montgomery

The United States is Still a British Colony
Chapter 1. The United States is still a British Colony
Chapter 2. Bend Over America
Chapter 3. Will The Real Government Please Stand Up !
Chapter 4. A Kings Charter Which Refuses to Die
Chapter 5. Common Law vs. Conquest
Chapter 6. How Long Can a Corporation Live ???
Chapter 7. American Land Ownership, A True Oxymoron


Stay away from Spiders

November 5, 2014

It’d be just like them to do this;

Hidden In Plain Sight – Nuclear Blackmail?

Dead Silence Theme (Instrumental)
Muse – New Born (Instrumental Remix)
Madness Muse Instrumental Karaoke
Based On Investigative Journalist Post:
An Interesting look at the possibility our Nations Collectively could be under Nuclear Threat via factions who have penetrated our Governments. Based on information posted on jimstonefreelance.com.
This video takes a look into the possible components that could be set in place in order to perpetrate such a threat.
The idea of Hidden in Plain Sight is relative to this possibility. Are WE being held hostage while the NWO uses our citizens as human shields to get what they desire?
This production is clearly protected Under
Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976,
allowance is made for “fair use” for the
purposes such as criticism, comment,
news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and
research. Fair use is a use permitted by
copyright statute that might otherwise be
infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal
use tips balance in favor of fair use
Thanks for Watching


With the absense of helium 3 around the world, many nations can no longer protect their ports so a nuclear threat can be brought into any nation now, EXCEPT ISRAEL and perhaps Russia and China, disguised as any object. And what objects won’t ever be tampered with? What objects will be put in place and left there untouched for years? What objects are there around the world that are placed in safe locations that are highly prominent and smack dab in the middle of large government oriented cities, that will never be demolished and take enormous public approval to have moved or removed?

ANSWER: Works of art. You can’t have a butt ugly Magna BSP owl put just anywhere but you SURE can have a butt ugly spider. Though seven of these were made originally, there are many many replicas out there and it would not take a spider, any work of art large enough will do.
Now onto these spiders

The body is not even that of a spider, it looks perfectly shaped to house an implosion nuke. I am not saying these spiders which are popping up everywhere have nukes in them, but I will say they would make prime candidates. First of all, it’s an ugly object of dread anyway. Second of all, these are placed in the most prime locations for nuclear weapons to go off. And thirdly, I can’t think of any city that would actually want to have an image like this in a highly prominent location, who cares if the artist was famous, these spiders in fact do not really belong anywhere.

“The Mother spider?” Yeah right. Why not instead use a nice looking argiope orb weaver, or something else, even a black widow? Try to identify any spider body parts on that thing other than the legs, it’s not even a spider. It is not something made out of respect for anything it is supposed to represent, it is instead a horrendous image of dread and that would work perfect for the psychological aspect of having it be something that could destroy the city around it.

After retrieving these images off the web, I typed “mother spider nuke” into Google, and the entire topic went dead. I do not know if my computers are rigged to trigger Google or what, but I could no longer get pictures, anything related to Burgeois, the locations they were placed, I could get NADA, google totally went blind on the topic of this spider. HMMMMMM. Interesting indeed, and fortunately I had looked into these spiders fairly well before typing that. A smoking gun? Maybe, maybe not, but the main point is that works of art would be prime for concealing a nuclear threat right out in the open, in front of the public.

I wanted to make sure this spider could house a nuke before I mentioned this, and managed to get my hands on a photo shot with a really good SLR. This allowed me to process the photo to bring out the shadow detail and see if you could see up inside the spider through the egg sack. Answer? you can’t, it is all sealed off and therefore you could hide a nuke inside.

Once again, I have received no information about these spiders with regard to nukes, I am only saying that their locations, appearances and relative newness are highly suspicious from a perspective of nuclear blackmail and that with the absense of helium 3 and Israel having no moral compass whatsoever, as well as an inability to launch ballistic nukes due to their political location, getting nukes into works of art would be absolutely prime.

I can only hope that bringing up the topic of Nuclear Blackmail will cause Israel to BACK OFF if this is the case. After all, if Americans really are in a position to oust their government via fair elections that are not rigged via totally un accountable electronic voting machines, (which is in doubt but worth mentioning the possibility of), and those same Americans oppose the war 91 – 9, ANY continued progress along the path politicians have been taking in DC amounts to political suicide and makes the prospect of nuclear blackmail all the more probable. Only Nuclear Blackmail or some other form of coercion can explain just how much the present government has made it a policy to go against the will of the people.

The Protocols of the learned elders of the Jesuit Order

November 5, 2014

These are a few excerpts from historical sources;

“For the purpose of attempting to create a breach between the Czarist regime and the [Jewish-owned] Royal Dutch Co., there was effected the publication in Russian, and widespread distribution, under the name of a Captain Linus, a notorious forged document labeled Protocols of Zion [select Jesuits under Extreme Oath being the true “Elders of Zion”]. The document was a falsified translation from the German teachings of the Jesuit, Adam Weishaupt, written by him as instructions for the trusted members of his Communist organization, the Order of Illuminati. . . . Few of the plotters who have conspired to enslave and rule mankind plotted more studied use of the control of money and wealth than did the founders of modern-day Communism: Jesuit Adam Weishaupt, alias Spartacus, and his disciple, Moses Mordecai Marx Levy, alias (Heinrich) Karl Marx. . . . Weishaupt’s success in forcing the Vatican to reestablish the abolished Jesuit Order, through revival of the Church’s original Nazarene Communism in the form of present-day Communism, led to the conspiracy’s control by the Society of Jesus. This undoubtedly is the significance of the admonition to the Jesuit Order by Pope Paul VI at the time of their assembly in May, 1965, to elect their new General, Fr. Pedro Arrupe [the mastermind behind the atomic detonations in Japan]. The situation explains why wherever a totalitarian movement erupts, whether Communist or Nazi, a Jesuit can be found in the role of “advisor,” or leader; in Cuba, Castro’s Fr. Armando Llorente and in Argentina the neo-Nazis [whose Nazi fathers escaped Europe through Pope Pius XII’s Vatican Ratlines] are led by Fr. Menvieille.” {44} [Emphasis added] Emanuel M. Josephson, 1968 American Physician and Historian The “Federal” Reserve Conspiracy & Rockefellers

“The truth is the Roman Catholic Papa is the real internationalist. . . . And every Roman Catholic who places the Holy See first in his allegiance, is himself an internationalist. It is the Roman Catholic [Jesuit] and not the Jew who dreams most of a super-state with his own most worshipful master at the helm.” {45} [Emphasis added] Louis S. Bauman, 1939 American Baptist Preacher The Time of Jacob’s Trouble: An Answer to the Question of A Little Jewish Girl: “What Makes Folks Hate Us So?”

“A few days ago [SS Reichsfuehrer Heinrich] Himmler asked me whether I would care to visit the Masonic Department at the Reich’s Security head office [SS General Reinhard Heydrich’s Jesuit-controlled SD]. He believed that I had quite the wrong idea of what Freemasonry really means and would like me to take a good look round. To this I agreed.

Today I had a look at the Department. First of all there is a huge card index which includes the name of every member on the lists confiscated from the dissolved lodges [as Freemason Adolf Hitler dissolved all the lodges within the Reich (pursuant to the outward, anti-Masonic policy of the Jesuit General whose Order authored Pope Clement XII’s famous anti-Masonic Bull of 1738) while he closely worked with domestic and foreign high-level Freemasons such as IBM’s American Thomas J. Watson and the Nazi Party’s “Yankee” Minister of Economics, Hjalmar “Horace Greeley” Schacht, in accordance with the secret, pro-Masonic policy of Jesuit Superior General Ledochowski who himself was a high-level Freemason].

I was then taken to a complete Masonic temple, where the ritual of the Masons was explained and a lecture given on the alleged dangers of the movement, its international relations, its powers and influence. I was shown papers illustrating the work and methods of the Masons, seeking to prove that they used poison to remove traitors from their own ranks [in accordance with the Jesuit-authored Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion]. There were skulls all over the place, a coffin marked with Masonic signs, aprons and insignia—really quite a gruesome display. . . .

Finally I was shown an enormous library, which contains everything written about Masonic activities, whether by Masons themselves or their enemies. It has been assembled from the wealth of volumes in the Masonic temples which had been closed down [the Company having centralized all secret Lodge power within Germany into the hands of its Grand Master of the SS Teutonic Knights, Heinrich Himmler], brought together to form one great Masonic library. . . . I learnt that the idea of arranging a Masonic Museum of this kind came from Heydrich, head of the Security police. At the same time he had set up an information center for all governmental and Party offices. When it was decided that a man was a Mason, that also decided his fate as a Party member, Government employee or Army officer. A number of important people had already lost their posts for this reason. In particular Heydrich had led the campaign against Dr. Schacht, President of the Reichsbank [who resigned in 1939 after having financed the rearmament of Germany], on the grounds that he was a ‘high-ranking Mason.’ [Heydrich was later assassinated by agents of the British SIS whose head, Sir Stewart Menzies, was also a high-ranking Freemason.]

‘Do you really believe, Herr Himmler, that there is a small group of high- grade Masons behind every political and economic event, regularly holding their secret meetings at which they make decisions involving peace and war, decisions affecting the history of peoples and governments?’ . . .

‘I not only believe it, Herr Kersten,’ Himmler answered, ‘I know it. You forgot to add that these high-grade Masons are identical with the inner circle of the Elders of Zion. Thus the Jewish [the Jesuit] rulers of the world have used Masonry as a camouflage for their own international power. . . . To get a clear picture you must examine the activities of the Masons in the last two centuries under the microscope. Then you can confirm this: leading Masons had a part in the overthrow of every government. They had a hand in every severe financial crisis which has brought the economy of a country to the edge of the abyss. [CFR member Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board making policy for the Pope’s Federal Reserve Bank, is also a Jewish Freemason.] Masons occupy the important positions in the economic and intellectual life of a country and draw other Masons after them. The decisive men who waged the First World War against us were Masons [CFR Edward M. House and RIIA Lord Milner of the Roundtable, both controlled by the Company]. The Second World War again finds World Masonry united against us [including King George VI, Churchill, FDR and Stalin]. In some Anglo-Saxon countries it’s quite impossible to achieve any position in industry or politics unless you’re a Mason. Aren’t these proofs enough, Herr Kersten?’ . . .

‘Are you still in the dark?’ Himmler retorted. ‘First of all it’s wonderful propaganda for the Masonic idea. If the royal house belongs to a lodge, then it is respectable in the eyes of the broad masses, the propertied and the educated classes. All doubts are at once silenced. The Masons no longer need to defend themselves, but only point to the king, their brother Mason. Is any individual going to be more clever than his king? Such membership automatically attracts all those whom the Masons particularly want, influential officials and politicians. Without any need for further action they have won over leading political and industrial figures to Masonry. . . . Meanwhile however, the Masons are quietly and systematically extending their influence; lectures are given on themes dear to Masons; prominent scientists are won over; links are forged with other lodges and the desired result is achieved; at first neutrality, then union with World Masonry. It will perhaps surprise you to learn that the higher grades of this lodge are duplicated. Beside the Grand Master, needed as an advertisement, there is a man never seen who really occupies a far higher position in world Masonry [the Black Pope], using and directing this ‘shadow system [Masonic world government] in a masterly way.’ [How did Heinrich Himmler know this?]

‘Only one power has not allowed itself to be deceived, the Catholic Church. She is the inexorable enemy of all Masonry [which is the open policy of the Jesuit Order towards both Freemasonry and Communism while secretly directing the rulers of Communism through Freemasonry]. . . . The Church knows very well why she is so inexorable. She herself works on Masonic principles; her religious Orders, in particular the Jesuits [as Himmler patterned the SS after the Jesuit Order, he being its “Ignatius of Loyola”], are nothing more nor less than powerful lodges of the Catholic Church. She knows what she has herself achieved with this system and will suffer no opposition lodge [for which reason the Order’s Masonic Adolf Hitler closed down all lodges within the Reich and consolidated all Masonic power within the Black Pope’s Teutonic Nazi SS displaying the Masonic symbols of the ‘Skull and Bones’ and the ‘Swastika’]. . . . Only the foolish Evangelical parsons have still not realized what is at stake. They join the Masons without realizing that they are digging their own graves.’ ‘But aren’t your SS really a sort of Masonic lodge, Herr Reichsfuehrer?’ I now asked Himmler.” {17} [Emphasis added] Felix Kersten to Heinrich Himmler, 1940 Dutch Physician to the SS Reichsfuehrer The Kersten Memoirs

“THE PRIME MOTIVIATION of [Jesuit-led] Catholic Action is its eschatological complex that the Vatican, as God’s designated champion, must do open battle with the forces of Satan before the world ends. . . . Leadership of these combined forces of evil is accredited to world Jewry and Freemasonry. The Protocols of Zion, preceded by the like forgery of The Secrets of the Elders of Bourg Fontaine [both documents having been authored by Jesuits according to this former anti-Jesuit Irish priest and Protestant writer], have spread this belief among Catholics everywhere. . . . it is safe to say that nothing contributed more to the rapid victories of Fascism over the forces of liberty and tolerance than these alleged Protocols of the Elders of Zion. As has been pointed out, they insidiously picture world Jewry and Freemasonry as conspiring to establish the reign of Satan on earth and, by contrast, the Catholic Church as the sole bulwark and only certain triumphant force against it. . . .

There is nothing too fantastic that the popes and Catholic authorities have not believed and propagated against Judiac-Masonic aims and activities. The most astounding and outrageous were the alleged revelations of the arch-imposter [and secret Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor] Leo Taxil towards the end of the last century. . . . described by [Jesuit] Father [Herbert] Thurston . . . as ‘the most blasphemous and obscene of anti-clerical writers in France.’ . . . That was all before his conversion to the Catholic Church. It was then he began to make alleged revelations about the Freemasons [most of which were true], and published a large number of books about them, each more astounding than the other. . . . Pope Leo XIII [whose Cardinal Secretary of State was a member of the Masonic OTO] received Taxil in private audience, gave him his blessing, and assured him that he had read his books against the Freemasons with intense interest, and that his writings were of great benefit to the cause of the Catholic Church. . . .

Then came the great dénouement . . . he called a public meeting in Paris on April 10, 1894 [just prior to the Order’s anti-Jew Dreyfus Affair], and announced, to the consternation of his hearers, that all his activities, his books and pamphlets, . . . were nothing but a huge joke dispassionately concocted and executed by him. . . . The interesting, and serious, point in the whole affair is the fact that it was the Jesuits who translated Taxil’s novels into German. The Jesuit Father Gruber, whose article on ‘Freemasonry’ in The Catholic Encyclopedia is nothing but a rehash of what Taxil says about it, widely publicized all his books.” {24} [Emphasis added] Leo H. Lehmann, 1944 Irish American Ex-Priest Behind the Dictators

Pursuant to the Jesuit-authored The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, the Order kills its own Freemasons if necessary as it did with both Napoleon Bonaparte I and Leon Gambetta. Within Protocol No. 15 we read: “9. Death is the inevitable end for all. It is better to bring that end nearer to those who hinder our affairs than to ourselves, to the founders of this affair. We execute masons in such wise that none save the brotherhood can ever have a suspicion of it, not even the victims themselves of our death sentence, they all die when required as if from a normal kind of illness [as millions perish via the Order’s Medical Inquisition] . . .”

Jesuits Expelled From Rome for 21 Years, 1872 – 1893 ; Suppressed “forever” by Pope Clement XIV in 1773, the Society functioned under other names such as “the Fathers of the Faith,” “the Illuminati,” and the French “Community of Zion,” from which came the Jew-hating Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Revived in 1814, the Order was again expelled from Rome by Pope Pius IX in 1848, yet re-admitted the following year after Rossi, the Pope’s Prime Minister, was stabbed to death and Pius IX was forced to flee in disguise to Gaeta. As King Victor Emmanuel II rightly assumed the Pope’s Political/Temporal Power in 1870, the Order became his vicious enemy, calling him “a usurper and the assassin of the Church.” But in 1872, the Black Pope and his murder-men were expelled from Rome for twenty years. The Order, after poisoning the king in 1878 and attempting the assassination of his son—King Umberto I—that same year, was allowed to return in 1893. In 1900 the King was given three “leaden bullets” by one of the Company’s Roman Catholic Anarchist assassins, Gaetano Bresci, the Society never failing to punish its enemies. Ridpath’s Universal History, John Clark Ridpath, (New York: Merrill & Baker, 1901) Vol. XVI, p. 678.

“Although first published in Russia in 1903, the Protocols of Zion had their origin in France and date from the Dreyfus Affair, of which the Jesuits were the chief instigators. . . . These Protocols of supposedly Jewish leaders are not the first documents of their kind fabricated by the Jesuits. For over a hundred years before these Protocols appeared, the Jesuits had continued to make use of a similar fraud called The Secrets of the Elders of Bourg- Fontaine against Jansenism—an anti-Jesuit French Catholic movement among the secular clergy [later outlawed by a papal Bull, Unigenitus].”—Leo Lehmann

“We were instructed that the Jesuits directed certain [Masonic] Jews who were loyal to the Pope, to write a document called The Protocols of Zion. When it was published the Europeans went wild.”—Alberto Rivera, a fearless preacher and a converted ex-Jesuit

Masonic Jewish Labor Zionist and member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Armand Hammer, a traitor to his own Jewish Race (along with Jacob Schiff Bernard Baruch and other papalized Masonic “court Jews”), built major industries within Communist Russia. For a time all trade between the United States and Soviet Russia passed through his hands. Working with the Jesuits’ Irish “Episcopalian,” crypto-Roman Catholic Henry Ford (who circulated the Jew-hating Protocols of Zion and whose son, Henry Ford II, formally converted to Catholicism upon his marriage into the McDonnell family), Fordson tractors were brought into Russia as early as 1923. As the head of Occidental Petroleum, he freely entered and exited the Black Pope’s Russian police state whenever he wished. He greatly contributed to the Jesuit-authored illusion that the religion of International Communism was Jewish, making Jesuit-controlled Fr. Bernhardt Stempfle’s Mein Kampf believable, justifying Hitler’s “Final Solution to the Jewish Question” first introduced in 1880 by Coadjutor Professor Heinrich von Treitschke. Speaking fluent Russian, Hammer was up close and personal with every Soviet leader from Lenin to Gorbachev, greatly building the Empire’s commerce evidenced by his “Hammer House,” the international trade center and hotel, financed by the Jesuit Order’s Chase Manhattan and Bank of America, built in the heart of Moscow. He also helped to finance the creation of the anti-Torah, Socialist/Communist, pro-Papacy, CFR-controlled Zionist government of Israel, its Masonic leaders secretly aiding the Jesuit Order as it continually strains every nerve to bring the world to its knees in worship of the risen Papal Antichrist to sit in Solomon’s rebuilt Temple in the LORD’s beloved Jerusalem. Hammer, Armand Hammer and Neil Lyndon, (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1987).

We must not forget that Charles Bonaparte—a Freemason (whose grandfather, Jerome Napoleon Bonaparte (1784- 1860), in addition to being a high-level French Freemason, had been an officer on the staff of the Jesuits’ Napoleon I)—created the Bureau that would enthrone Hoover the Inquisitor; and Joe Kennedy—one of Archbishop Hayes’ Knights of Malta—would be responsible for the election of FDR. As always, the Freemasons are in the foreground while the Jesuits and their Knights of Malta are in the background.

Like the Jesuit “police index” in Rome, Hoover established indexes and lists on thousands of individuals illegally, investigating their private lives without authorization from the Department of Justice. That is an Inquisition! Hoover also compiled other lists anticipating the erection of Concentration Camps. We read:

“Hoover had also—on his own initiative and without any statutory authority—set up a Custodial Detention list [now, the Red and Blue lists], of persons to be rounded up and imprisoned in concentration camps, should the need arise. The list included . . . journalists critical of the administration, writers critical of the FBI, and certain members of Congress [its ultimate fulfillment being the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s “Operation Garden Plot,” now to be implemented by the Order’s “Holy Office” of Homeland Security].” {15} [Emphasis added]

Hoover, like his Nazi counterpart Himmler, hated the Jews. He resisted Jewish immigration and blamed notorious crimes of the Jesuits on the Jews. For example, Emma Goldman was blamed and deported for inspiring President William McKinley’s assassination in 1901, and the Rosenbergs were convicted and electrocuted for giving Stalin nuclear secrets. The truth is the Jesuits of Buffalo, New York orchestrated the murder of McKinley with one of their fanatical, Polish Roman Catholic assassins, Leon Czolgosz, and they used FDR to give Stalin “the nuclear device” in 1943. This technological high treason, committed through the Company’s International Intelligence Community (the OSS and NKVD), furthered the illusion of “the Cold War” and “the Communist threat.” Using the Jews as scapegoats is nothing new: we are familiar with the Dreyfus Affair and the Protocols of Zion.

Lastly, the FBI had a working relationship with the MID and the ONI that would be perfected over the years. Of this beginning in 1939 we read:

“During Hoover’s meeting with Roosevelt and [CFR Cordell] Hull, the president had ordered him to coordinate the FBI investigation with the Army’s Military Intelligence Division (MID) and the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). Roosevelt’s request simply formalized what was already an ongoing relationship . . . On June 26, 1939, Roosevelt sent a confidential presidential directive—drafted by the FBI and Justice Department officials—to the heads of the relevant departments stating, ‘It is my desire that the investigation of all espionage, counterespionage and sabotage matters be controlled and handled’ by the FBI, MID, and ONI, and that no investigation in these areas be conducted ‘except by the three agencies mentioned above.’

In 1983, John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy, told the graduating class of Annapolis:
‘Within weeks, many of you will be looking across just hundreds of feet of water at some of the most modern technology ever invented in America. Unfortunately, it is on Soviet ships.’ In 1982, Senator William Armstrong addressed the United States Senate, and said:

‘America’s budgetary woes would not be nearly so severe if our economy were not groaning under the strain of financing two military budgets: Our own, and a significant portion of the Soviet Union’s. . . . It is difficult to overstate the extent to which the West has contributed to the military thereat that now endangers our very existence.’

As I noted earlier, most Jewish banks are controlled by those associated with either the Round Table [now the “Royal Institute of International Affairs”—RIIA] or its American counterpart, the Council on Foreign Relations. Did Jacob Schiff really give the Bolsheviks $20 million? I haven’t been able to document he did, but I can document the fact that the major founding for the Bolsheviks came from non-Jewish sources [i.e., the White Gentile Rockefeller and Morgan banks of New York City directing the Black Pope’s Federal Reserve Bank, and London’s Gentile-ruled Bank of England—for it is “the times of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24)]. There are those who would like us to believe that Zionism is the primary source behind the effort to establish a world government [i.e., the Order’s The Communist Manifesto attributed to Masonic Jew and hater of the beloved Hebrew/Jewish/Israelitic people, Karl Marx; the French Jesuits’ secretly authored The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion; “Father” Bernard Stampfle’s Mein Kampf; Masonic Henry Ford’s Jesuit ghost-written The International Jew; the Jesuit Order’s periodical “Civilta Cattolica” of the late Nineteenth Century; etc.]. It is not.” {16} [Emphasis added] Stanley Monteith, 2000 American Christian Historian Brotherhood of Darkness

33rd Degree Freemason Henry Ford and the Nazis, 1938 #342 Words cannot express the Machiavellian duplicity of America’s most renowned automaker, apostate Protestant Episcopalian, anti-Jewish race, CFR-controlled, Masonic Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor, Henry Ford. Although he openly attacked the Jews on Wall Street, he never crossed swords with brother anti-Jew, Gentile Masons Morgan and Rockefeller, as he needed both U.S. Steel and Standard Oil to build and fuel his vehicles. Residing in Detroit near the Order’s University of Detroit Mercy and openly associated with nearby anti-Jew, hate radio-priest Charles Coughlin, Ford published his Dearborn Independent which parroted the Order’s incendiary, anti-Jewish-race rhetoric, further igniting the international “Jewish Question” within the US. In 1920 Ford published his four-volume set, The International Jew (ghost-written by Jesuit Coadjutors and also published in Germany), which quoted The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (also written by Jesuits about the time of the Dreyfus Affair (1890s)). Published in 1925, the priest-written Mein Kampf cited both The Protocols and The International Jew, its anti-Jewish doctrines being identical to the Company’s Roman monthly, La Civilta Cattolica. Ford not only converted German youth to Nazism, but financed Hitler through General Ludendorff—the idol of Germany. In 1928 Ford also merged his German assets with Rockefeller-backed I. G. Farben for which Hitler hung a picture of this “Ugly American” in his office at Munich’s Brown House. In 1938 Hitler gave financiers Ford and Mussolini the Grand Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle, both fascist, Masonic Coadjutors having created “the Fuhrer” with whom the Order would wage its Eurasian Crusade. Who Financed Hitler: The Secret Funding of Hitler’s Rise to Power, James Pool & Suzanne Pool, (New York: The Dial Press, 1978).

“PAPACY AND FREEMASONRY, those are the two powers active throughout the world and each is seeking to dominate it [remembering that “extremes meet”]. The solution of the [open and seeming] struggle taking place between them is at the present moment of the utmost importance; for we are face to face not only with the crossroads of history but also with a radical transformation of humanity itself. EITHER ROMAN CATHOLICISM WILL LIFT US UP AGAIN TO THE LEVEL OF CHRISTIAN CIVILIZATION [restoring the Pope’s Dark Ages] OR ELSE JUDEO-MASONRY WILL DRAG US DOWN THE PATH OF BARBARISM AND DECADENT PAGANISM [the coming risen Pope’s Jesuit-led Masonic/Luciferian New World Order]. The whole world oscillates between the two: CHRISTIANISM [Jesuit- Romanism] and PAGANISM [Jesuit/Egyptian-Masonry]. . . . It is this accursed Sect whose perversion was stigmatized by Pope Pius IX when he named it: ‘THE SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN.’ Due to its enormous extension and its nowadays very visible collusion with INTERNATIOAL JEWISH FINANCE, Freemasonry has indeed become the ‘SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN.’ As such it provided funds for the RUSSIAN REVOLUTION, installed in Moscow; it carried Communism from East to West, took up the leadership of States of their governments, their various administration and departments or ministries, and of their parliaments and, in consequence, it is such a world power that, for any discerning mind, it seems as though, today, there are on earth only two great powers, viz: JUDEO-MASONRY [ruled at the top by the Black Pope through Freemasonry’s occult Supreme Councils of the 33rd Degree] in the service of WORLD JEWRY, and the CHURCH in the hands of PETER’S SUCCESSOR [also ruled by the Black Pope]. . . .

EVER SINCE 1738 all the Sovereign Pontiffs denounced, stigmatized and condemned what has hitherto become the world evolution of Judeo- Masonry [Jesuit-Masonry ruling Israel’s Masonic Jewish Labor Zionists] which, now, on earth, admits that IT HAS BUT ONE ADVERSARY, NAMELY, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, whose [open and seeming] agony it is now witnessing. . . . Vada Satana! Get thee behind me Satan with thy legions of rebellious angels, with thy early workers of iniquity the Judeo-Masons. . . . GOD IS WITH US [“Gott Mit Uns” being the slogan on the belt buckle of Pope Pius XII’s Nazi-German Army] in this fight which is our fight, the fight of the PAPACY against JUDEO-MASONRY.” {29} [Emphasis added]
Monseigneur Jouin, 1930 French Monsignor to Pope Pius XI Defender of the Protocols of Zion Promotes Mein Kampf’s Open Jesuit Doctrine of Anti-Judeo-Masonry Papacy and Freemasonry

“The official Vatican publications (Osservatore Romano and the Civilta Cattolica) were both busy conducting international campaigns against the Jews. To help Allah and Islam along, the Osservatore Romano published Adolf Hitler’s favorite book—The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, (App. 1)—and had thousands of copies distributed among the British troops occupying the ‘British Mandate’ in Palestine. . . . No sooner had The Protocols gotten into the hands of the British army of occupation . . . than [Winston] ‘Winnie the Pooh’ Churchill took off to Cairo, Egypt to meet with Moslems and Roman Catholics; no Jews were allowed at the conference. . . . So on March 27, 1921, he handed over (without the consent of the League of Nations) two-thirds of Israel’s land area to a Moslem ‘caliph’ (Abdullah). He then bragged about having ‘created Trans-Jordan with a stroke of a pen.’ . . . T. E. Lawrence (of ‘Arabia’) was the one who egged Winston on to give away two-thirds of the Promised Land to Allah [in violation of the Balfour Declaration and thus deliberately creating the Pope’s Israeli-Arab agitation for over eighty years].” {39} [Emphasis added] Peter S. Ruckman, 2001 Baptist American Pastor & Historian Israel: A Deadly Piece of Dirt


October 31, 2014

You are a Man that had a contract with the Lord Almighty in Genesis chapter 9 1-17. Some say Chapter 17. You were to give full allegiance to the Lord. The Lord gave the land to all men. The Lord alone requires no tax to be paid him for your living on it. The Lord never requires any license of any Kind that you know exists. However, Man has taken all land and claims it for himself through the fallen angel Satan. Man then creates corporations and calls them government to confuse the masses into believing they now have a King, a President, a Governor or a mayor of a town they have to listen to. This is false idol before them of which the Lord warned them. But YOU are too ignorant to believe this. These so called government beings now make you their subject. However all men BELIEVE that they are somehow sovereign. Sovereign meaning they are free from any control. They are made to believe by MYTHS that they created this so-called wonder government that is really a huge corporation. This is not the case, for man inherently cannot be sovereign. He is not sovereign under the Lord and is but a servant of the Lord. When a man takes control of other men he assumes the Role of Mammon when the Lord said no man can have two masters. It’s either The Lord or Mammon. Man can make a choice. Man meaning YOU, made a choice and wanted a president and a governor. So you cling to Mammon. You then swore off of the contract of the Lord and lost all Christian leanings and can no longer swear you follow the Lord as you forsook the Lord for Mammon and follow Mammon. So there is not one true follower of the Lord in America that I know of. Not one, as they all are citizens of a new master, called Mammon. You then took the only thing the Lord wanted from his servants, allegiance, and gave it to a corporation that this one man created. So you sold your soul to mammon (man) and you claim you are a Christian that follows the Lord? Remember the Lord said you cannot have Him or Man as a master. It’s one or the other. YOU chose the “OTHER” a President now called Obama and the Governor of the corporate State you reside in. You became a fiction called a PERSON so the corporation, itself a fiction, can control you as a PERSON. PERSON is not MAN that the Lord Created. PERSON is an artificial entity that the corporation created so it, meaning YOU, can be controlled. YOU always answer to PERSON in what ever YOU do or read and can’t deny that fact. The Corporation then writes STATUTES that are NOT LAW. They are man made writings that appear to be law but are not. Here is what the real; ancient Hebrew said in the real Exodus 10 that is not found in the basterized Bible of the KJA . Exodus 20

Vs 4 You shall not write your own “ statutes” except that is after the heavenly. And those in the Land in place of, and which are made contrary to the Way by men, you shall not bow down to or appease, and you shall not obey them.

And it says in Vs 13 You shall not tolerate lies or deception in those who goveren.

Statutes only become Law as you think, when you accept the rank of citizenship and pledge all allegiance to the corporation. Please follow me as YOU did it to yourself and have no one BUT YOURSELF to blame. BEFORE that time YOU were an Alien to that corporation.. The Corporation writes statutes with the term PERSON so they can control that artificial PERSON through statute. They can never write a statute with the word MAN in it because then they would take the Alien still called MAN and control that Alien. They cannot do that in corporate law. That Alien is a servant of the Lord and is called MAN and NOT a PERSON . So you did it to yourself when escaping the control of the Lord when you broke that Contract with the Lord in Genesis and left the HOUSEHOLD of THE LORD in Ephesians 2:19 to become a citizen /resident in the HOUSEHOLD of the Corporation of a man that was called State or United States that is subject to all statutes of Man. Those are not law statutes but becomes the Law of the corporation that then does bind one to fully obey that corporation statute as it was just as powerful as the Lord’s real Law. Now if you don’t know how to escape from the predicament YOU yourself threw YOU into. I say Tough S&%#T

You are suffering what the Lord said would happen and it’s YOUR Problem how YOU get out. It’s not mine; It’s not your neighbors; it’s no ones problem but YOURS. Here is what the Solicitor General of Lincoln stated, and he is the only legal person that can make a statement binding the corporation United States to Law and statute of man.

Whiting from the 1863 edition of his book War Powers


….otherwise the conqueror would be subjected to the rule of those whom he has subjugated.

But the local Laws of a conquered country may be changed not only by the law-making power of the conquering country, but by virtue of the BELLIGERENT rights of the conqueror.*

All these propositions follow from the fact that the power of a public enemy to make or administer law is terminated by the conquest of that territory by It different law-making and law-administering power, viz., that of the conqueror.

The local laws of a conquered country of which our army holds military occupation, have no force or effect whatever, except by our permission. When such local laws agree with those of the invading country, such laws may be, and usually are, adopted and sanctioned because they do so agree therewith. Thus rules governing the rights of property, the relations of persons,

…and the laws of crimes in the respective countries of the belligerents are often so nearly alike that the administration of them is permitted to remain unchanged even in war . But no law or institution established by law is permitted to survive, which is in conflict with those of the conqueror.

In all cases, the will of the conqueror governs. Hence, in a ceded or subjugated territory, all laws violating treaty stipulations with foreign nations, or granting rank and titles or commercial privileges in conflict with the institutions of the conqueror, are abrogated.*

It has been asserted that the municipal laws of a belligerent territory remain in force, “proprio vigore,” until altered by military orders; but, although such laws may have been tacitly adopted, or the enforcement thereof may have been permitted, it is not because these laws retained any validity” proprio vigore.” .Their only validity was derived from the tacit or express sanction and adoption thereof by the will of the commander in-chief of the invading army.

In case of conquest of a foreign country, the question has been asked, what laws, if any, of the invading country are ipso vigore, and without legislation extended over the territory acquired in war?

The suppression of the present rebellion is not the conquest of a foreign country. The citizens of the United States residing in the districts in rebellion are not alien enemies, though. they are public enemies; and it is important, in several points of view, to observe the dis-

tinction between enemies who are subjects of a foreign government, and are therefore called” alien enemies,” and those who are denizens and subjects of the United States, and being engaged in civil war, are called” public enemies. ”

An alien owes no allegiance or obedience to our government, or to our constitution, laws, or proclama tions. . 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 .

The proclamation of the President, issued during the present rebellion, in executing the powers’ conferred on him by the Constitution; the Acts of Congress, in executing its powers; and the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, are all, in one respect, “like the Pope’s bull against the comet;” the proclamation, the laws, and the decisions are alike resisted and spurned by our adversaries; neither can be enforced until the enemy is overthrown. But when the soldiers of the Union shall have routed and dispersed the last armed

force of the rebellion, and when the supremacy of our military power is undisputed, the constitution, the laws of Congress, the proclamation, and the decisions of the Supreme Court, will at the same time, pari passu, be acknowledged and enforced. It is, therefore, idle to speculate upon the legal validity and operation of the proclamation liberating enemies’ slaves, in districts not yet secured in our military possession. It would be equally useless to attempt to determine the validity an operation of our constitution, laws, and decisions of courts in these rebellious districts. Neither of them will be enforced upon the enemy until they have been subjugated. When that event takes place, whether it be the result of battles or of returning sanity of repentant madmen, the army of the United States will then have actual possession of every portion of the United States, and of every slave who may be found therein; and the rights of the slave to his freedom under the constitution, the statutes passed, and the proclamations issued by the Government during the war, will be secured to him at the same time that other rights under the same Constitution and proclamations will be secured to the other inhabitants of the country..

And there can be no doubt that in civil war the laws of the United States, rightfully extending at all times over the whole country, are to be enforced, so far as applicable, in time of war, over the belligerent territory as fast as it comes under our military control; and that in case of complete conquest, the constitution and laws of the Union will be restored to full operation over all the inhabitants thereof. At the same time, the laws of war will have swept away all local hostile authorities, and all laws, rights, and institutions resting solely thereon.

West’s Dictionary: a·li·en (a’le-?n, al’y?n)
Owing political allegiance to another country or government ; foreign: alien residents.
Belonging to, characteristic of, or constituting another and very different place, society, or person; strange. See synonyms at foreign.
Dissimilar, inconsistent, or opposed, as in nature: emotions alien to her temperament.
An unnaturalized foreign resident of a country. Also called noncitizen .
A person from another and very different family, people, or place.
A person who is not included in a group; an outsider.
A creature from outer space: a story about an invasion of aliens.
Ecology. An organism, especially a plant or animal, that occurs in or is naturalized in a region to which it is not native.
tr.v. Law., -ened, -en·ing, -ens.
To transfer (property) to another; alienate.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin alienus, from alius, other.]

Now if you think you can get out of this corporation as easy as you can get into it read this and tell me it will be a piece of cake. Remember Satan now rules you through this one man’s corporation that chartered all things in this world, and NOT the Lord. He is sitting up there crying because he knows man is inherently evil. YES YOU ARE, so don’t give me the sob story that you didn’t forsake the Lord for a President or Governor and you yearn to be a citizen of Satan’s corporation, and just love that corporate Constitution you wrote so much you would die for it and people have, called the corporations soldiers. The MAMMON representing Satan wrote that Constitution and controls you through a document about which YOU have no concept but the Myths taught you by fellow Satan followers. Here is your nemesis that YOU created and no matter how much YOU wail and say it is not so, IT IS SO . http://www.atgpress.com/inform/cs066.htm and http://www.atgpress.com/inform/cs067.htm.

Now you are on YOUR own to figure how YOU are either going to stay in the corporation and pay property taxes all your life; be subject to getting a Driver License all your life; Registering a car all your life; paying income taxes all your life; Paying permits for house building or repair; buying a gun; carrying a gun concealed or not; and all the ills befallen you where you have to pay the debt that Mammon runs up and expects citizen slaves to pay where you have absolutely no say so whatsoever. Congress and State corporate legislators only are responsible to the corporation of this one man that YOU never knew existed and still don’t. That man or men all through the ages represent Satan and so state in their organizational structure.

If you have to ask then you are not ready to get out because you don’t yet understand God’s natural law of nature and contracts. Only those with analytical thinking and deductive reasoning will know how to get out.

The Informer April 24 2009

Born Again and the Old and New Covenant

July 11, 2014

Great study;

Rightly Dividing….. The Word of Truth TWO
Chapter Two

Born again and the Old and New Covenant… Sonship and Adoption

The subject of this Manual is based on Paul’s words found at 2 Timothy 2:15 and along with this counsel, we can add another admonition from Paul taken from Philippians 1:9,10 “to test things which are of consequence.” CLV While the King James Authorized Version words it this way “That ye may approve things that are excellent that ye may be without offence till the day of Christ” In the footnotes of the Companion Bible, it states the word, excellent used here is literally “differ” Dr Bullinger says in the same footnotes on this passage, “We are to test the things and having found them to differ, we must not join them together, but rightly divide them (2 Timothy 2:15)” There is much we should test in our relationship with Christ and others but in this Manual we are primarily concerned with, weeding out error in our doctrines, eliminating “the lies and myths” prevalent today in all denominations, so that we can “fully follow Paul and His sound doctrine and words” 2 Timothy 3:10 Paul also repeats this at 1 Thessalonians 5:21 “Yet be testing all, retaining the ideal from everything wicked to the perception, abstain.” The division between the two administrations is only one of the many things we must learn to rightly divide through testing what is said in the scriptures. We “test” what is for us and distinguish it from what is for Israel. We learned in Chapter One that there are two differing ecclesia with two distinct evangels. Now we also must learn the need to divide between dispensations. This is a controversial subject on how many dispensations there really are in God’s Word or in the history of mankind. I want to consider only two in this chapter, the Law dispensation and the Grace dispensation. The Law dispensation began with Israel and Moses agreeing to a covenant with Jehovah which in scripture was likened to a marriage contract with Jehovah as the husband and Israel being the wife. Israel failed to keep the contract and as we discussed in Chapter One Jehovah divorced her. Christ fulfilled the Law Covenant with His sinless life, death, burial and resurrection, ending the Law dispensation. God begins to demonstrate His Grace with Saul of Tarsus seven years after Jesus died. Thus begins the dispensation of Grace.

This then shows us the need to also “test” which dispensation, is being discussed in any given passage as information or truth may change: Israel was in the Law dispensation, being under the law covenant, that was their truth but it was not our truth as Gentiles then nor is it today, in the Grace Dispensation. “To Test” can apply in several ways. We test things we are told by others, measuring it to Gods Word and we test what is in Gods Word whether it applies to us or someone else, also what time period past, present or future. To test things that differ agrees with correctly cutting or rightly dividing Gods words in order to see how and where things that differ fit either for Israel or for us, the Body of Christ. It’s like a puzzle we are working on; when we pick up a piece we test it to see if it fits where we think it should. So in our Bible research we test a verse to see where it fits? We ask questions, to who is it written and for what dispensation, time period or age and who the author is. We examine the context, paying attention to the use of small words and figures of speech; all of this is used in helping us to put the puzzle together and this helps us build on our understanding of Gods Word.

So this testing we are told to do is all part of “rightly dividing” and if we do not learn how to do this we will find ourselves confused with words and terms used in the Scriptures. As is the subject matter we are going to discuss in this Chapter. The common expression used today, is that we must be Born Again, so we ask the question, who is this really for?

As we discussed in Chapter One, The Whole Bible is for us to learn from. In it we find information and truths which fit all believers no matter which church or dispensation they are in. These would be Universal truths, such as the Creation account, History and Who our Savior is along with guidance about morals, our conduct, and counsel in dealing with others in life. Then we have Specific truth given to and for different individuals, churches and dispensations. Israel had specific instructions based on their Law Covenant to do with worship, obedience and their every day life. In the Grace dispensation our instructions are not based on law keeping, but ours are based on Grace given to us by God. We also have a different destination from Israel. We have seen the need to recognize the Different or Specific road maps for each church, with maybe the easiest way to understand this principle, is how easy it is for us to recognize the counsel given for individuals! For instance; counsel given husbands differs from that given to wives or counsel directed towards children is different from husbands and wives, also the counsel given to slaves as in Paul’s day. Likewise the Nation of Israel has counsel, different from our counsel given to us by Paul for the Body of Christ.

The New Birth or Born Again WE have been told a believer today is “born again” based on John 3:3. WE need to test this by asking questions. Which Bible book is this term found in and who is the writer of it and to whom is it speaking or written to? This book was written by the Apostle John, one of the twelve Apostles for Israel which is our first clue that this information is not for us but for Israel. Let’s review this passage of scripture in its context. John 3:1-7 “Now there was a man of the Pharisees, Nicodemus his name, a chief of the Jews. This one came to Him by night and said to Him, Rabbi we are aware that Thou are a Teacher come from God, for no one can be doing these signs which Thou are doing, if God should not be with Him…Jesus answered and said to Him, Verily, verily, I am saying to you, if anyone should not be begotten anew, he can not perceive the kingdom of God. Nicodemus is saying to Him, How can a man being a veteran be begotten? He can not be entering into the womb of his mother a second time and be begotten! Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I am saying to you, If anyone should not be begotten of water and of spirit, he can not be entering into the kingdom of God. That which is begotten by the flesh is flesh and that which is begotten by the spirit is spirit, You should not be marveling that I said to you, you must be begotten anew”

Jesus was not talking about heavenly life for Israel and so He was not talking to Nicodemus about going to heaven or that he needed a spiritual rebirth right then as is commonly taught. We learned in Chapter One the heavenly calling was the “secret hidden in God” a secret or mystery until it was given to Paul to reveal it and so that secret of heavenly life would have still been hidden when Jesus was talking to Nicodemus. Remember Paul is not converted until 7 years, after Christ dies. If Jesus had been talking about heavenly life with Nicodemus He then would have revealed this secret and not Paul and that would make Paul a liar. Paul told us it was given to him…to reveal this secret for the Body of Christ. Ephesians 3:1-3 Colossians 1:26, 27

Jesus in His ministry only proclaimed the evangel of His Kingdom to come, on earth! Jesus taught from the Old Testament, the promises and prophecies about His Kingdom. The man Jesus was bound by His Hebrew heritage being born into the nation of Israel as their Messiah. He had to live up to the Covenant and Laws of that nation in order to fulfill it. He would not be able, lawfully to bring in anything not already found in the Hebrew Scriptures. So Jesus, in his reply to Nicodemus, saying “you must be begotten anew” would not have been speaking of going to heaven or of a spiritual rebirth into the Body of Christ as is taught today. This term has been translated as born again or to be born anew. Nicodemus asks, how can a man be born anew? In John 3:7 Jesus turns the conversation from Nicodemus the individual, to what the scriptures taught for Israel the Nation. We need to look at the small word Jesus used in His reply. The word is “you” in that verse, “you must be begotten anew” “You” is in the plural and refers to the national interests of the Nation of Israel and not just of those of Nicodemus.

Another example of this is found at Ezekiel 36:22 “Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD…I do not do this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for MINE holy names sake” Verses 26-29 “A new heart also will I give you and a new spirit will I put within you and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes and you shall keep My judgments and do them. And you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers and you shall be My People and I will be your God….I will save you from all your uncleanness.”

“YOU” we see speaks of the Nation of Israel and not of an individual. Another example is seen in Matthew 5:14″You are the light of the world.” How was Israel the light of the world? They were the keepers of Gods words written on scrolls. His light is His Word. Israel was used to record the scriptures and safeguard them. Today the Light has been passed to the Body of Christ for safe keeping. The Light is Gods Word and when we go home, it will be handed back to Israel once again. The Book of Ezekiel which we just read from is full of promises for Israel which teaches that the Nation will be restored in the Kingdom age on the earth and for this to happen, they must be born anew, born again or regenerated which means to be brought back to life, through the spirit of God. This is of course by means of a physical earthly resurrection of which their own prophets spoke of in the scriptures many times. One reason, most believers do not understand this, is because that they have been taught, at death, a person goes immediately either to heaven or hell. They are taught man has an immortal soul thus they also just like Nicodemus, do not understand the resurrections taught in the scriptures. The doctrine of an immortal soul is a false doctrine and has clouded the truths in the scriptures concerning death and the resurrections. Nicodemas was blind to the scriptures as was most of the Nation of Israel.

To enter this Kingdom on earth, Jesus told Nicodemus “You must be born again” referring to the faithful of Israel, “the just” are guaranteed a resurrection in that Kingdom. This will be the first resurrection on earth after Christ’s advent and which will begin the one thousand year reign of Christ. This is that Kingdom on earth they were taught to pray for in the “Lords prayer.” Matthew 6:9,10 This will be the time of the new birth for Israel. The Israeli saints will be born again, brought forth from the grave through the power of the spirit of God and this then is how the Nation is reborn and this is how this nation inherits Physical blessings along with Spiritual blessings, not in heaven but in that Kingdom on the earth. Daniel 12:1,2 John 5:28 and also please read Ezekiel 37:1-14 of the prophesy of “dry bones” and note Verse 11 “This is the whole house of Israel.”

In John 3:1-7 Jesus spoke of being born anew, through the water and spirit…as Nicodemus could not grasp…being begotten anew. The human birth is through water. The Physical nation of Israel was born through the waters of the Red Sea when Moses brought them out of Egypt. The next birth for them when they are begotten anew will be through the spirit. God’s Spirit will regenerate them, in the resurrection from the dead, giving them their new vivified, immortal bodies. The terrestrial glory Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 15:40 is for the Israeli saints resurrected with a body like Jesus had AFTER His resurrection and BEFORE He ascended to heaven. Ezekiel 36:26,27 Israel will be given by God a new heart and a new spirit capable of righteous living. Water and spirit are used as symbolisms of a birth, of bringing to life as well as a cleansing.

The word vivify in the Greek is “zo’ o poi e’ o” and means Live-Do, make alive or made alive In other words being placed beyond the reach of death or given life within oneself. This is immortality, and is promised to be given to a believer at their resurrections. We do not already have it as is erroneously taught by the religions of the world and sad to say, Christendom. Paul refuted the false belief in an immortal soul at 1Corinthians 15:53 “For this corruptible must put on incorruption and this mortal must put on immortality.” For a list of all the places the word vivify is found, please refer to the index in your Concordance in the back of the Concordant Bible…Page 320.

The nation of Israel produced Christ whose death guarantees the fulfillment of the promise made first to Abram at Genesis 12:3 and then to Abraham Genesis 22:18 “All families of the earth will be blessed through his seed” Christ is the seed coming through the nation of Israel, descendants of Abraham through his promised son Isaac. Christ will in turn bring forth that nation again by means of the spirit of regeneration; this is the resurrection in the Kingdom, on earth. In that Kingdom, Jesus promised them, that they then would have all the powers that Jesus had and more, to perform miracles and signs, worldwide, blessing all the families of the earth bringing them to life in Christ. John 14:12 “he who is believing in Me will be doing greater than these”

Water baptism was a symbol of cleansing for Israel and of re-birth as it ties in to their history. Their first birth was through the waters of the Red Sea as they fled Egypt and then in their becoming the nation of Israel. The symbol of water is carried on down to Jesus day and the requirement for baptism for Israel. A washing or cleansing, repenting from breaking their vows in their covenant with Jehovah. Everything for Israel is tied to a physical reality they knew in relation to their Law Covenant with Jehovah. The Gentile nations were never in a relationship with Jehovah; these details of their covenant have no meaning for us. God only worked with His chosen nation at that time, Gentiles were lost, dead to God. It is only through the Body of Christ that God now works with the Nations, calling people from all the nations; God showing another aspect of His Plan of the ages…Salvation to all through Grace, the opposite of Law. Israel needs a cleansing, from her sin of unfaithfulness; baptism was the sign…the Body of Christ has a spirit baptism.

Baptism for the Body of Christ is a spiritual baptism. 1 Corinthians 12:13 “For in one spirit also we all are baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and all are made to imbibe one spirit.” Paul did not baptize after he began the dispensation of Grace. He states this in two ways “Christ did not commission me to baptize and I am thankful I baptized only a few” 1 Corinthians 1:14-17 Is not this a strange thing for Paul to say if water baptism is required for us or for our salvation? Not strange at all when we rightly divide the evangels. We then can understand how Israel’s water baptism differs from our spirit baptism into Christ. If we will always remember the differences, Israel is physical, fleshly, and earthly while the Body of Christ is spiritual, heavenly. We then will not confuse Israel’s promises of inheriting a literal earthly land in the Kingdom on this earth. While the Body of Christ, through Paul is called to heaven. We are aliens here. “inherently or all along our place is in the celestial realm” Philippians 3:20 “WE are ambassadors for Christ” 2 Corinthians 5:19,20 Ambassadors live in foreign lands representing the government they are a citizen of, but when war breaks out, they are called home. We, whose citizenship is in heaven, with this earth being our foreign land, from which we will be called home before the greatest war of history! When it is time for God to restore Israel to her land and launch Christ’s war against Israel’s apostasy and bring judgment to the antichrist and his allies here on the earth….we will be gone, taken to heaven to fulfill our assignment, joining Paul in reconciling those living in the celestial realms.

Nicodemus was a Pharisee, a teacher in Israel, he did not understand or believe his own scriptures, he did not understand the resurrection. These religious leaders were in apostasy and not understanding their own promises through the prophets. The nation as a whole was blind, because of being, in the Lo ammi state, this was the reason they were unable to understand spiritual things. This Lo ammi state began 400 plus years earlier when Israel was divorced by Jehovah and allowed to go into captivity under Babylon for the 70 years. From that time onward the Nation as a whole was without Gods spirit, guidance and protection as their husbandly owner. Only to individuals in Israel did God give insight, like Daniel and the Prophets which He used to record His prophetic words and Israel’s history. While living in Babylon, the Israelis were susceptible to the false teachings of that pagan Nation and even adopted their false beliefs and this is the reason why the Pharisees of Jesus day were teaching many false doctrines. In Chapter Seven we will “Rightly Divide Truth and Error” and look at some of these pagan doctrines which came straight from Babylon and can be found taught in the Body of Christ today. Paul refuted these doctrines which many are referred to as the Gnostic beliefs.

In Chapter One we discussed the different evangels and the way they are phrased, such as “God’s evangel” “My evangel” “The Kingdom evangel” and “The Grace Evangel” Some other small words we also need to test the differences with are in these phrases, “The kingdom of heaven” with “The Kingdom out of heaven” and “The kingdom in heaven” Gods Kingdom with Christ’s Kingdom. WE must separate the kingdom of heaven from the kingdom in heaven!

God’s Kingdom: refers to His overall Kingdom, Taking up both heaven and earth. So we see there are two spheres of God’s Kingdom, an earthly and a heavenly. The Kingdom of heaven is the earthly part of God’s Kingdom. Christ is of heaven and He will come from heaven to set up the Kingdom of heaven on the earth. This is always so surprising for me how many believers do not understand this, since at least 90% of the Bible talks of Israel and her promises for this earthly Kingdom and yet Christendom as a whole insists on sending them to heaven with us? The Kingdom in Heaven is for The Body of Christ who, will go to heaven. Christ’s Kingdom: refers to His Millennial reign on earth after His advent.

God’s evangel is His complete plan for salvation through Christ, which includes both, The Kingdom evangel for Israel on earth with Peter and the other Apostles which Jesus chose in His earthly ministry and The Grace evangel given to the Body of Christ which is Paul’s evangel. Paul revealed “the secret” of a body of saints who are called to the heavens. We have discussed why Paul refers to his message as “my evangel” and that only Paul taught the “mystery” or the “secret” which is the Body of Christ with the heavenly calling and this is in part why Paul tells us to “rightly divide and to test things which differ,” which is how we are to separate “OUR” calling from the evangel for Israel, the Kingdom evangel, the Kingdom on earth.

This little word of is so important to distinguish from in and to understand that believers today are not taught of Israel and the literal fulfillment of her prophecies which are yet to come. They read of heaven, in the scriptures and immediately assume it is talking of being in heaven because they have been taught there is only the one calling for all saints, which is to go to heaven if they are good enough.

The subject of the old and new covenants is also misunderstood. The Old Covenant was made with Israel. Deuteronomy 4:13 “He declared unto you His covenant, which He commanded you to perform, even ten commandments: and He wrote them upon two tablets of stone” In this original covenant God promised to look after their welfare in return for their obedience and it consisted of far more than the ten commandments. Deuteronomy 4:40 The first question we might ask is what is a covenant? Definitions always help us to analyze “things that differ” The New Century Dictionary says for Covenant; (covenant means to agree) “An agreement between two or more persons to do or refrain from doing some act; a compact; a contract; in Biblical usage, the agreement or engagement of God with man as set forth in the Old and the New Testament; in law a formal agreement of legal validity”

So simply put, a covenant is an agreement or a contract between two parties, in this case, Jehovah and Israel. Their agreement is called the Old Covenant in Scriptures. The contract consisted of laws and codes of conduct. Jehovah as the Husband promised to provide, protect and care for Israel as long as she kept her side of the contract as a faithful wife. In the account in Exodus 24:3 we can see Moses presented the contract to the people and they agreed to it, saying “All the words which the LORD hath said will we do.” This complete Covenant was thus a contract and is quite lengthy and can be found at Exodus 20-23 they were in covenant and or married to Jehovah. As recorded in the scriptures, Israel’s history shows her unfaithfulness to her Husband Jehovah and after she took other lovers, described as whoredom in the KJAV. This is not sexual immorality but spiritual, the worship of other gods thru idolatry and forsaking the Laws she agreed to keep with Jehovah, He announces His divorcement of her at Hosea 1:9 He also promised to take Israel back and make a new covenant with them. Hosea 1:10,11 Israel would one day be His People again. The renewing of His relationship with Israel is for them in the new covenant as promised. We will go through many of these promises in this Chapter.

The whole book of Hosea is a picture for Israel and for us to understand God’s dealings with them in her unfaithfulness. Hosea was told to “take a wife of Whoredom,” this was a woman from the 10 tribes, named Israel who was in Idolatry. Judah, the name for the two tribe kingdom which were still faithful to Jehovah in their capital at Jerusalem. The 10 tribe Kingdom was in Idolatry. Hosea took a wife from that 10 tribe kingdom whose capital was at Samaria. Hosea is a picture of Jehovah married to faithless Israel.

When Jehovah brought Israel out of Egypt and through the Red Sea, they too at that time were idol worshippers, having adopted the Egyptian gods as theirs. Jehovah married a whore, Israel. She produced some faithful children but most were unfaithful. With this understanding in mind, read Hosea through, it is interesting reading and see how Israel is likened to a wife there as well as in many other places in scripture.

At Ezekiel 16: 32 she is a wife committing adultery, Ezekiel 16:38 Israel compared to a woman breaking wedlock. Numbers 14:34, Hosea 3:3 “And I said unto her, Thou shall abide for me many days; thou shalt play the harlot, and thou shalt be for another man; so will I also be for thee” At Jeremiah 3:1 “They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man’s shall he return unto her again? Shall not that land be greatly polluted? But thou has played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to ME….saith the LORD” Jeremiah 3:8 says “When I got to see that for the very reason that unfaithful Israel had committed adultery, I sent her away and proceeded to give the certificate of her full divorce to her, yet….” NWT Please read the whole of Chapter Three in Jeremiah and you will see the divorce and the promise of her return to Jehovah. In Verse 12 “do return O renegade Israel, is the utterance of Jehovah….I shall not stay resentful to time indefinite.” Jeremiah takes us on to the Kingdom on earth in Verse 17 “In that time they call Jerusalem the throne of Jehovah; and to her all the nations must be brought together to the name of Jehovah at Jerusalem and they will no more walk after the stubbornness of their bad heart.” This is an excellent passage showing Jehovah restoring her and that she will rule over the nations of the world….evangelizing them to their God Jehovah in the person of Christ in the prophetic Messianic Kingdom on earth.

God promises through every prophet of Israel, over and over that He purposes to forgive Israel and take her back at some future time, promising to wait for her and take her back in the latter days. Jeremiah 3:14-18 continues with a prophesy for their future, “Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD: for I am married unto you and I will take you one of a city and two of a family and I bring you to Zion; And I will give you pastors according to MINE heart, which they shall feed you with knowledge and understanding. And it shall come to pass; when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days…saith the Lord….they shall say no more. The ark of the covenant of the LORD neither shall it come to mind; neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it neither shall that be done any more…At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD and all the nation shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem; neither shall they walk any more after the imaginings of their evil heart. In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers” We see the call for them to come back to Him. “Return sons of returning, avers Jehovah, for I own you”

Also we find the Prophet Isaiah speaks of her divorcement at Isaiah 50:1 and Isaiah 62:4 “Thou shall no more be termed forsaken neither shall thy land any more be termed desolate…but thou shall be called Hephziabah and thy land Beulah…for the Lord delighteth in thee and thy land shall be married” The name Hephziabah means “my delight is in her” and Beulah means, “married” She became King Hezekiah’s wife after Jehovah restored his health and gave him 15 more years to live. In the third year of the fifteen years given to him, his wife gave birth to Manasseh, who later became Israel’s worst King ever. His name means “forgetting” refer to Genesis 41:51 So was he named, because God made Hezekiah forget his troubles. But it seems Manasseh forgot to rule his people in the ways of Jehovah. The prophecy in Isaiah 62 uses the comparison to Hezekiah’s restoration to health, his marriage, his wife as a small picture of Jehovah and Israel as husband and wife divorced but taken back in marriage again. Israel is in the divorced state now; cast off, lo ammi, not My People, all during the “times of the gentiles” which began with their Babylonian captivity. This is their time of being dominated by Gentile nations and the time of their blindness. Their blindness as a nation will continue until, Christ’s Second Advent.
Jeremiah 50:20 “In those days, and in that time, saith the Lord, the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for, and there shall be none; and the sins of Judah, and they shall not be found: for I will pardon them whom I reserve” This is yet unfulfilled prophecy and reserved for the last days before and into and on the other side of the tribulation. Also, Ezekiel 11:16-20 “Therefore say, ‘Thus saith the Lord God; Although I have cast them (Israel) far off among the heathen, (Gentile nations) and although I have scattered them among the countries, yet will I be to them as a little sanctuary in the countries where they shall come. Therefore, thus saith the Lord God; I will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel. And they shall come thither, and they shall take away all the detestable things thereof and all the abominations thereof from thence. And I will give them one heart and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh and will give them an heart of flesh: That they may walk in My statutes, and keep Mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be My people, and I will be their God.”
Ezekiel 36:22-38 Verse 23 “And I will sanctify My great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD saith the Lord God, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes” Notice how the heathen which is the Gentiles or nations are going to learn about God by and through His work with Israel on the earth.
Ezekiel 36:25-29 “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh and I will put My spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and ye shall keep My judgments, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be My people and I will be your God….I will also save you from all your uncleannesses” This is an interesting passage notice, “I will sprinkle clean water upon you” this is baptism, another controversial subject. We have settled water baptism is not for the Body of Christ as it is for Israel only. The other area of dispute is of immersion or sprinkling. Max Binney has done a small pamphlet on this subject which is quite good. If you do not have it, contact me for one. Or his daughter at 1-423-442-4564
Zephaniah 3:8-20 starting in Verse 8 we see the time of indignation and work forward to the time of Christ’s rule and the nations referred to in Verse 12 as “the afflicted and poor people” who will be coming to the Lord, showing us that nations and or peoples in these nations will survive the tribulation time period and come to worship God.
Thus we see through all these passages, Israel is the wife. Israel on the earth a physical nation of which we the gentiles had no part in it or her marriage to Jehovah. We have to ask the question, why would any of the promises in the Old Testament made to this literal physical earthly nation of people apply to The Body of Christ in any way, shape or form? Israel is promised The New covenant specifically. In the many promises, she is named, Judah and Israel, and promised to be one nation again. To be the Wife! Even though Jehovah divorces her, He states He will always be for her. Hosea 3:3, 4 He cannot marry another such as the Body of Christ; He would be unfaithful to His wife, Israel and his betrothed bride, The Remnant! God Promises to make a New Covenant with Israel Jeremiah 31:31-34 “Behold, the days come saith the Lord that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt which My covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put My Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts and I will be their God and they shall be My people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor and every man his brother, saying, know the Lord; for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity and I will remember their sin no more.”
This is quoted in Hebrews 8:8-12 “For finding fault with them, He saith, Behold, the days come saith the Lord when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in My covenant and I regarded them not, saith the Lord….For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put My laws into their minds and write them in their hearts and I will be to them a God and they shall be to me a People” This is written to the Hebrews, who are the Jews and the information here can not be placed within Paul’s evangel in any way. The only way to do so would be to spiritualize the scriptures, a very dangerous thing to do. Notice also how it refers to Israel waiting for her covenant, which it is still in the future for them as foretold in prophecy, but not for the body of Christ, we have our
Spiritual covenant now, God made it and keeps it for us, we are secure in our calling.

Hebrews 10:16-18 “This is the covenant which I shall be covenanting with them after those days, the Lord is saying, imparting My laws to their hearts, I shall be inscribing them on their comprehension also, and of their sins and their lawlessness shall I under no circumstances still be reminded.” This continues with how it refers to the future with these words. “I will make a new covenant” notice it does not say I have made, The writer of this book lived after Christ died and after Pentecost and he uses the future tense in regards to Israel’s New Covenant. We must make note of these words also, “In the days to come” and “after those days” All of these references point to the future and are yet to be fulfilled. According to these words all of Israel and Judah, Israel the 10 tribes and Judah the 2 tribes will be united as One Nation again, this has not happened yet. This is the complete House of Israel restored. The next thing to note is the differences with the New Covenant over the Old, remember in the Old Covenant, obedience was required for Jehovah’s care? While in the New Covenant. Jehovah does it all. “He imparts His law to their hearts and He cleanses them and does not remember their sin”.

Acts 28:27 Also refers to Israel in their Lo-ammi state. “Their heart is stout, their ears are heavy, their eyes are shut, lest they should perceive and hear and understand and Jehovah should heal them.” This is why only a few in Israel responded to the Kingdom message. Again we see God dealing with individuals and not the nation as a whole. All through the ministry of Jesus and then in the ministry of the apostles a Remnant was chosen by God, a part taken out of the whole House of Israel. The nation was blind while Jesus carried out His ministry among them. He did not come to restore the nation at that time. He came to fulfill the Law and the prophets concerning Himself. Christ had to die to save Israel and the world from their sins. This was first in God’s order and demonstrated by the Passover celebration. Next was death, burial, resurrection and ascension to heaven to sit at Gods right hand and wait until time to return and establish His Messianic Kingdom on earth. During Jesus earthly ministry He chose a Remnant out of Israel, some, not all in that nation, for that future Kingdom ruling class. Paul refers to this at Romans 11:5 “there has come to be a remnant according to the choice of grace”

Notice Jesus words at John 15:16 “You did not choose me, I but I chose you.” God chose those for Jesus and then Jesus picked His apostles, very few in the nation accepted Him because as John 6:44 says “None come to Me unless the Father draws him” Matthew 11:27, Luke 10:22 Israel was still Lo-ammi, and it was not God’s time to bring them out of it. Christ came as their Messiah, He was rejected as Messiah and King, and this was God’s plan and not a surprise at all for God. God had a secret “hidden in Him for the ages” Colossians 1:26, 27 Ephesians 3:3, 4 and 5:32. So after Christ’s death, the time was approaching for this secret to be revealed. The kingdom was to be heralded first to Israel; the Remnant chosen out of the blind nation thus the foundation was laid for the Second Advent and the Kingdom on earth. Time arrived for the body of Christ to be revealed.

Paul comes into the picture many years later with the “secret” given to Him by Christ. Paul does not preach this secret until he is severed from Israel and her Kingdom evangel; this is possibly 17-20 years after his Damascus road experience. WE find Saul at Acts 13 “severed from Israel” and from that point on called by his Roman name of Paul. After his severance it was then the time to reveal this secret given to him only which is why he referred to the secret evangel as “my evangel” His evangel was for the New administration, the Body of Christ, recipients and dispensers of Grace in this dispensation of Grace.

We have more testimony that it is God Who does the choosing and reveals His truths as Jesus also told Peter in Matthew 16:18 “you see these things because the Father reveals them to you” While the purpose of the parables given was because the nation as a whole should not understand. His disciples asked Jesus “Why do you speak in Parables to them?” Matthew 13:10, 11 He said to them “To you has it been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of the heavens, yet to those it has not been given.” (Remember of heaven is the kingdom on earth) Israel knew their promises in the Scriptures were of a Messiah to come, Who would rescue them from the Gentile domination and set up God’s Kingdom on the earth. They then would rule over the Gentile nations. They did not recognize these promises of certain events would not all happen in chronological order. God understanding human nature probably did this on purpose. It seems the believers always felt the time was close. If they knew then as we now know that the timing for Israel was to be thousands of years in the future, they probably would have been discouraged and also relaxed in their work and discouraged?

There are over 300 promises concerning the Messiah, starting with His birth and through His ministry, death and resurrection. Neither Israel nor the Remnant He chose saw or understand that He had to die. They knew of prophecies of their Messiah arriving with a flaming army putting down the enemies ruling over them. They did not understand these referred to His second advent. 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 This lowly man, Jesus did not wage the war they were expecting, He did not overthrow their Gentile oppressors thus they did not realize He was their Messiah. It was not time for the Kingdom on earth to be set up; Christ had to be rejected and die first, in order to save all sinners in the world and for God to go into His second stage of Salvation to demonstrate His Grace with us, the Body of Christ and the Grace dispensation a new administration to represent it. All of this planned from before time began. Ephesians 1:3,4

What are the Times of the Gentiles? Gentile domination over Israel is what is meant by the times of the gentiles. Also Jesus spoke of this time in Luke 21:24 “And Jerusalem shall be trodden by the nations, until the eras of the nations may be fulfilled” Eras of the nations or times of the Gentiles…same thing. Daniel while in captivity to Babylon interprets a dream the King of Babylon was given by Jehovah which was a prophecy of each succeeding World power to follow Babylon, who was the first to dominate Israel.

Each succeeding Gentile world power would also be dominate over Israel down to the latter days and then Gods Kingdom would come, rescuing them from Gentile domination and especially the antichrist attempting to wipe them off the earth in the end time. Please read Daniel 2:27-45 What needs to be understood about this prophecy concerning these World Powers depicted by the different elements of the image which stopped with the Grecian Power being split into 4 kingdoms and it then evolved into two with the Roman Empire one of these. But the Roman Empire did not achieve world domination, although Israel was being dominated by the Roman Government in Jesus time. So that prophecy has stopped, it will start up again in the Last Days with the feet and toes, The 10 kings or kingdoms in some sort of alliance, a political Kingdom under the antichrist. Time stops for Israel with her prophecies and her evangel when Paul began his evangel with the exception of Israel’s prophecy for Jerusalem’s destruction at A.D. 70. From that time she was put on hold, until The Dispensation of Grace is over. The kingdom evangel stopped and God then using The New Administration of the secret hidden in God throughout the past eons and only through Paul does God bring in the Body of Christ. We are the Grace Dispensation and it will continue until we are removed from this earth. God then will start up Israel’s clock again. It will be time for her prophecies to begin unfolding where they left off, just as though we had not even been here. The drama for Israel will be played out in that part of the world and in the land of Israel. God will raise up a future remnant. He will cause Jews to return to their land. The temple will be rebuilt, the old worship of Jehovah will resume. The apostate Jew will be working with “the man of Lawlessness” leading Israel into the peace treaty with him which begin the last days. This will be the one seven of Daniels prophecy of the 70 weeks found at Daniel 9:24-27 the one seven is the third and last part of that prophesy, to be fulfilled in the last days after we are called home to heaven. That seven year period of time begins when the “man of lawlessness” signs a peace treaty with Israel. Midway into those 7 years he breaks the treaty and begins warring with Israel, this is said by some to be the “time of Jacob’s trouble” and “the indignation or the time of wrath”, and this tribulation is for Israel as the antichrist seeks to destroy her God’s indignation and wrath will be against those who seek to destroy Israel. Satan will have been cast out of heaven at that midpoint of those seven years, angry knowing he has a short period of time…we read that 42 months which is 31/2 years, the last half of those seven years are given him to wage war with the saints. Revelation 12:7-10, 13-17 and 13:5 All of this leading to the Second Advent of Christ to rescue her and bring in Christ’s Kingdom to be established on the earth, completing the Prophecy found in Daniel 2:27-45 I do not think Jacobs trouble and the great tribulation are the same time period any more…

In Manual two, “The times of Restoration” for Israel, we will go into depth on what I feel are the differences with the time of Jacobs’s trouble and the tribulation time indicating they are different periods of time foretold for Israel. I am now leaning towards, Commander Steedman’s views put forth in the Differentiator Publication years ago…that none of Daniels foretold 70 weeks have yet begun. He felt they would begin after the Body of Christ is snatched away, with all of those 490 years to take place after we are gone. It is a very deep but fascinating study. Rick Farwell has posted those articles on his website. If you wish to begin reading them. http://www.geocities.com/490/ We will discuss them in depth in Manual Two.

Now many say, “If Israel had repented and accepted Christ, He would have come back and set up the Kingdom and there never would have been a body of Christ!” I cannot accept this teaching, The Body of Christ was “chosen before the foundation of the world” Ephesians 1:3,4 and chosen even before Israel, for her prophecies state “at the foundation or from the foundation.” Matthew 25:34 Israel could not accept Christ, because God had blinded her and because God all along planned to insert, the Secret, Grace Dispensation into the ages. If God had wanted to bring in the Kingdom at that time, all He had to do was unblind Israel, open her eyes, soften her calloused heart, just as He did for those men He chose to be the Remnant church. He allowed them to see, Jesus was the Messiah. They did not do it of their own volition; it is by means of His spirit that eyes are opened. None of us in any age or dispensation come to God on our own nor do we understand spiritual things on our own, the sooner we get this into our heads the sooner we will begin to understand God is in control and this is His program for humanity, you and I are merely the players and He chooses Who He will…for whatever assignment He wishes.

Because of not understanding the different ages and dispensations, most scholars see time in the scripture as one continuance stream and so there are many theories on Daniels prophecy, some teach that these world powers have already come about, with many trying to make them fit into the World powers of our day. When we Rightly Divide and Test things which differ all the nonsense of trying to find the USA in prophecy will end. We will recognize all prophecy in the scriptures mainly concerns Israel in her land and concerns her Kingdom Evangel, her apostasy and with her conflict with her enemies, the nations surrounding her, just as in the days of old. That is still, unfinished business for Israel. God must be vindicated and Israel restored so Gods focus will once again be on Israel’s region of the world.

There are also many different ideas on the time period of Israel’s divorcement, when she was cast off. Some see her in and out of Lo ammi from Babylon on down to Jesus day and then finally cast off at Acts 28:27, 28 while some see her as not being cast off until her rejection of their Messiah, Jesus. Some teach, it happened at A.D. 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed. It seems to me, we must go back to the pronouncement made in Hosea 1:9 of her then becoming Lo ammi (not My People) this began the withdrawal of Jehovah’s protection as He divorced her and so from that time on He was no longer her husbandly owner and her casting off for sure was some years after Hosea pronounced those words and when the 10 tribe kingdom called Israel had left Judah, the two tribe kingdom. Israel was first conquered by Assyria and later conquered by Babylon and when Judah fell into apostasy they two were conquered by Babylon the then World Power. This was the beginning of the times of the Gentiles, Israel no longer a sovereign nation or kingdom and that domination has continued uninterrupted down to our day, this is still the times of the Gentiles for Israel. The prophecies of the new covenant and the remarriage are yet to come. In Gods eyes, today Israel is just one of the nations until the times of restoration.

Israel’s restoration is to happen after a long period of Gentile domination and after losing their temple and all their records and the sacrifices stopped which describe Israel even to this day. Hosea 3:4 “For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king and without a prince and without a sacrifice and without an image and without an ephod *(a garment only the High priest wore) and without teraphim *(idols) afterward shall the children of Israel return and seek the Lord their God and David their King; and shall fear the Lord and His goodness….in the latter days.” The latter days, I believe will be the 490 years of Daniels prophecy leading to the Last Days, end times, the final seven years of that prophecy which reference the time of tribulation and Israel’s greatest apostasy leading to the coming of their Messiah. It is obvious this did not happen at Christ’s first coming but all of this will be fulfilled during His presence and Second Advent for Israel. Daniel 9:24-27

I can find no evidence that Israel has been taken back by Jehovah since her being conquered by Babylon. Those promises are for the future after we are removed and take her on into the Christ’s Kingdom. This to me is why they were blind and calloused in Jesus day, which made them unable to see or hear or to understand spiritual things. Romans 11:8 “What then? What Israel is seeking for, this she did not encounter, yet the chosen (the remnant of Israel) encountered it. Now the rest ( the nation of Israel) were calloused, even as it is written, God gives them a spirit of stupor, eyes not to be observing, and ears not to be hearing, till this very day.” Isaiah foretold this and Paul repeats it in his day. Isaiah 20:10

As we go through this Manual learning to, Rightly Divide Israel’s Kingdom Evangel from Paul’s Grace Evangel, I am hoping this will become clear for the reader. So when we view Israel’s rejection of Jesus as their Messiah it is shown by the evidence that it was because they were blind to spiritual things since the time of their divorcement in Hosea. It then is clear for us; they were not blinded and cast off because of the rejection of Jesus but Israel rejected Him because, of being blind, which began with their divorcement, after the time of Hosea words, you are Lo ammi. God continued to deal with individuals in that nation, but the Nation was cast off, blind to spiritual things. God used prophets whom He called and enlightened them , so using some out of Israel, but not all and this is explained by the phrase; The Remnant of Israel. God chose a Remnant from the Blind Nation to begin the Kingdom church with. He was still divorced from the nation of Israel; she was no longer His wife during Jesus ministry, the scriptures speak of a bride for the lambkin, this has to do with the marriage of the lambkin to the Remnant of Israel and takes place in the future Messianic kingdom on the earth.

The New Covenant with Israel: Another way to understand the New birth for Israel is to see how it is linked with their New Covenant which God promises to make with them in His Kingdom on earth and is still in the future for them. We in the Body of Christ have no part in this new birth or their new covenant which we see is to take place on the earth and for one very important reason. We are told by our Apostle Paul that our allotment is in the celestials, which is in heaven. Paul told us we are to be snatched from this earth and taken to heaven.

So we have discussed how Jehovah made the Old Covenant with Israel, and she was the only nation He made any covenant with or took as His wife and so logically His promises to the House of Israel cannot be transferred to the nations, the Body of Christ as is so commonly taught! God promises to forgive Israel and to reunite them. These are specifically spoken to the House of Israel, which is Israel and Judah and are linked to His words of giving them a new heart and a new spirit. None of these can apply to the Nations who were never in the covenant nor were we ever His wife. The nations have no need to be forgiven for unfaithfulness but Israel does. This is why, Paul states we are a New Administration and he does not say, the old is transferred to a new, but that we are a brand new administration, God goes from Law to GRACE. Paul reminds us at Ephesians 2:11,12 “Wherefore, remember that once you, the nations in flesh who are termed uncircumcision by those termed circumcision in flesh, made by hands that you (gentiles of the nations) were, in that era, apart from Christ, being alienated from the citizenship of Israel, and guests of the promised covenants, having no expectation and without God in the world.”

There is a lot of confusion with the Old and the New Covenant for Israel. Most denominations, in one form or another place the Body of Christ into the New Covenant with Israel or Israel into the Body of Christ. Some throw Israel out of the picture completely and teach The Body of Christ is now Spiritual Israel. For us to say all of this was taken from Israel and transferred to the Body of Christ and that we are the ones remarried and to whom the new covenant in prophecy applies is to spiritualize the scriptures and is in total error. It is even said outright by many, that we are Spiritual Israel. While some other sects claim they alone are spiritual Israel. Like the Seventh Day Adventist…Jehovah’s Witnesses…The Mormons and others who are off shoots of the British Israelism Doctrine which started long ago with the spiritualizing of the church and which has been taught in many different forms since that doctrine began. The Anglo Saxon’s taught of the lost tribes of Israel and that believers since Christ are a Spiritual Israel who are replacing Israel because they believe the nation of Israel is lost forever. If we ignore Israel and her promises past and future in this way along with her place in Gods Kingdom on earth we are guilty of that false teaching. How confusing are all these theories and false notions for the believer, who should ask these questions. Who is right and how do I figure it out? By learning to Test things which differ and to Rightly Divide the Word of Truth, this is what will help us to avoid these errors being taught today and take us right to Paul our Apostle for sound doctrine.

So we have seen in the scriptures how Israel is to be born anew and this is when their new covenant is to be put into effect in the Kingdom on earth, through a marriage union. The new birth will be done in spirit as they will be given vivified bodies, made immortal and their wedding feast or celebration to take place at that time will last throughout the1000 years of Christ’s reign, this is the reward for the faithful. The unfaithful will be saved later but they miss out on the reward of ruling and reigning with Christ and the glories of that Kingdom. They will stay sleeping in the dust and will not be raised until that kingdom time is over, then, they will stand with the unjust in the last resurrection of shame or contempt. Revelation 20:5,6 Daniel 12:1,2

The Old Covenant was based on Law so we should ask, what about the New Covenant with Israel? The first covenant was a fleshly contract with a Nation of people. The Law given them was on stone tablets, stone is hard and unyielding. It was a death dealing covenant. God knew they would fail. The Law in fact did not save them but pointed to their sin and inability to achieve their own righteousness. Romans 5:20 7:6,7 The Law led them to Christ for He alone could live up to it and fulfill it and thus it was nailed to the cross with Him, removing the death curse, it only could give. Jesus Christ born into this world totally human but untainted by sin bought all of mankind out from under the curse of sin and death inherited from Adam and Eve. Paul tells us at Philippians 2:7 Christ empties himself (of his deity) to be born in the fashion of mankind.” With His death, His blood, as the unspotted sacrificial Lamb of God, Who takes away the sin of the world. John 1:29 He, undoing the works of Satan, buys and redeems all humanity from sin and death! This releases them from being captive to the death state but as Paul told us there is an order for the resurrections. 1 Corinthians 15:23 “each in their own order or class” Three resurrections are taught in Scripture. Verse 22 “For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” Nothing is said of only those who repent or who accept what Christ did, But a blanket statement made by Paul…all dying in Adam…. which is all of humanity who will be made alive in Christ! Let this beautiful truth wrap itself around your heart and Praise God!

Israel broke the first covenant by not keeping the Law and turning to other gods in worship. They had ignored the Sabbaths for the land of every seven years letting it lie fallow thus in the 70 years of their captivity the Land was given its Sabbaths back, allowed to lie fallow for those 70 years. It seems to me that the law Covenant did not generate love in their hearts for Jehovah, being forced to obey with punishment hanging over ones head will never generate love. The Law was used as a foil to demonstrate Gods mercy and love for His Creation unable on their own to achieve God’s righteousness. But God’s righteousness generates mercy and thus God promises to forgive Israel and remarry her in The Kingdom on earth. First, He provided the Lamb which takes away the sin of the world, Christ. Second, in the Kingdom, He makes the New Covenant with them, it will be a spiritual covenant done by His spirit. Just as their….re birth is done by the spirit as stated in the Ezekiel prophecy, where we read. “God gives them a new heart and a new spirit and HE writes HIS Law on their Hearts.” This covenant also based on Law keeping but this time, God gives them the ability to keep His Law with a new heart and a new spirit, HIS! His Laws in their Hearts as His Spirit will be All within them. It would be impossible for them to do otherwise.

The Physical nation of Israel failed, flesh always fails, and God knows this. He made provision for this failure long before anyone ever failed. Israel in the millennial reign will be born again as a new nation. By spirit…a re-birth. This re-birth will be God’s work for Israel thus the verses of; The Potter and His vessel are fitting and very beautiful and promised for Israel. Jeremiah 18:1-6 “The word, which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying. Arise and go down to the potters house and there I will cause thee to hear My words. Then, I went down to the potter’s house and behold, he wrought to work on the wheels And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter so he made it again, another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying. O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? Behold as the clay is in the potter’s hand so are you in Mine hand O house of Israel.”

God illustrated to Jeremiah in the above passage that Israel was a marred vessel. But just as, the marred vessel does not leave the potters hand, make note of this beautiful truth. “The Potter” does not throw the marred pot away but he reworks it until it is acceptable. That is what God is doing with Israel through the centuries of chastening she will become a vessel of honor but only through the new covenant in which God remakes her, “giving her a new heart and spirit.” This is when the Great Potter will display His perfect vessel. That is the promise Paul also shows with God as the Potter in Romans 9:14-33 This is also what Paul is telling us when, he spoke of the time when “God would be All in all” in order for all creation to become righteous, able to live up to Gods standards of righteousness, His spirit must fill us all before this is possible. 1 Corinthians 15:28

Two more little words which differ…Before and From: Ephesians 1:3,4 “according as He chooses us in Him before the disruption or the laying down of the foundation of the world” The Body of Christ chosen before. While Matthew says Israel was chosen from the disruption or foundation of the world. Matthew 25:34 “Then shall the King be declaring to those at His right, Hitherto, blessed of My Father! Enjoy the allotment of the kingdom made ready for you from the disruption or foundation of the world”. Test the differences, “Before” an event began and “From” that same event in history. There is a controversy whether these verses should be translated as foundation or disruption, I will leave you to do a word study of your own on this. The point, I want to focus on are those two little words and how they differ…before and from. If all saints are in the body of Christ as claimed by most denominations and that all saints are going to heaven we have to ask another question. Why so many different words and titles for one church or the same group of saints? These differing titles and words and terms are showing us there are some differences being spoken about. The scriptures are consistent, that there are two different churches and evangels with two different times for there creation by God and that they have two different purposes in Gods Plan of Salvation throughout the ages!

Another question should come to our minds. Why did God choose to create the Body of Christ before Adam and Eve were created and had even sinned? If or unless… God knew sin would enter the world of mankind before He ever created them? Please let it sink into your heart and mind God has been in control from day one of creation and nothing has taken Him by surprise. Everything was planned and or foreknown, laid out in its proper order by God. He had a plan for His creation and He put Plan A into operation from the beginning. God never needed to revert to a Plan B for a remedy for sin or to save mankind.

The Body of Christ chosen by God Ephesians 1:3,4 and as I studied this subject of His doing the choosing, over and over I see in scripture, that He always did the choosing, no one came to Him on their own. God did the choosing with Abram, and Israel, His prophets and even His Remnant with Jesus and of course us in the Body of Christ. Paul stresses “the natural or soulish man can not understand spiritual things” 1 Corinthians 2:14 WE, who believe in Christ, only are able to believe, because of being given, the spirit from God which enables us to do so. 1 Corinthians 2:12 Today, the unbeliever is unable to respond to God or spiritual things because of not having yet been chosen and given the spirit which is necessary to do so from God. God has many stages laid out in the eons through which He is demonstrating Who He is not just for mankind but also for the vast celestial realm. They are watching God’s work with mortals. God gave a example in his choosing of Abram, it is stated that he is the father of believers and all as Paul tells us, for the Body of Christ in spirit, through faith are we being declared righteous. For Israel, Abraham was their Physical father in the flesh. Israel, the physical nation under Law, earning righteousness through Law keeping contrasted with the body of Christ being graced, given a righteous standing. Abram was not seeking Jehovah, he was an idol worshipper when God chose him and made an unconditional covenant with him. Genesis 15. This is how Abraham is our father but later with his descendants God made a conditional covenant with the nation of Israel through Moses with circumcision as the sign. It is always God Who chooses, enabling some to respond to Him. In Israel’s case, as Jesus stated He chose His followers, and they could not respond unless the Father had drawn them to Him and gave them spiritual understanding. For us Paul explains it so eloquently in Ephesians…let read it.

Ephesians 3:1-12 “On this behalf I, Paul the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you the nations, since you hear of the administration of grace of God that is given to me for you for by revelation the secret is made know to me according as I write before, in brief, by which you who are reading are able to apprehend my understanding in the secret of the Christ, which, in other generations, is not made known to the sons of humanity as it was now revealed to His holy apostles and prophets: in spirit the nations are to be joint enjoyers of an allotment, and a joint body and joint partakers of the promise is Christ Jesus through the evangel of which I became the dispenser, in accord with the gratuity of the grace of God which is granted to me in accord with His powerful operation. To me less that the least of all saints, was granted this grace; to bring the evangel of the untraceable riches of Christ to the nations, and to enlighten all as to what is the administration of the secret, which has been concealed from the eons in God, Who creates all, that now may be made known to the sovereignties and the authorities among the celestials, through the ecclesia, the multifarious wisdom of God in accord with the purpose of the eons, which He makes in Christ Jesus, our Lord in Whom we have boldness and access with confidence, through His faith.”

Paul in prison in Rome, states “he is the prisoner of Christ” for us, those of the nations who are in the administration of grace. This secret was given to him and not to Peter, through direct revelations from Christ. “The secret not made known in other generations” unheard of, unknown, untraceable, because it can not be found in the Old Testament writings for Israel because it is not for Israel! It was unheard of, unknown until revealed to and through Paul, our Apostle for the Body of Christ. The term, in spirit, the nations, is plural, this also includes Israel as a nation, because of her lo ammi state. Those called out of all nations, make up the joint body, of Gentiles and Jews, but the new administration does not replace the remnant church nor is Israel in the Body of Christ. What was given to Paul was separate from Israel and was a brand new administration, a spiritual entity. God also called individual Jews into this body but not the nation of Israel or any of the leaders, Jesus chose for the Remnant Church… like the twelve Apostles whose is, the Kingdom evangel for Israel and the Kingdom on earth!

Paul taught the “untraceable or unsearchable riches” which was the “mystery or secret.” It cannot be traced or searched out in any other scriptures before Paul writes of it. This new administration of Grace was “hid in God through out all the past eons” and was only then being made known through Paul, that those called into the Body of Christ which was a Joint Body made up of Jews and Gentiles but also being revealed to those living in heaven. The spirit world consists of many different levels of beings. Paul refers to them as the “sovereignties and authorities among the celestials.” God’s wisdom, mercy and love on display in this new church, whose message is Grace dispensed to and by this new administration. Read Colossians 1:16, 20 26 and 2:10 mentioning these spiritual beings who are witnessing God’s grace in us.

The Body of Christ being a spiritual entity and so our covenant is a spiritual covenant and is in effect now, which it consists of our being “given every spiritual blessing in the celestials” Ephesians 1:3 These spiritual blessings are our spiritual covenant as Paul shows at 2 Corinthians 3:3-6 contrasting the one made in stone with ours as spiritual blessings freely given. The main point to consider is that Israel’s New Covenant is still to come in the future. While we have ours now, the free gift of grace, we did nothing to earn these spiritual blessings and we can do nothing to lose them. This covenant was freely given to us, without our even knowing about it. We are declared righteous as Abram was, even though we in the flesh are not. I couldn’t help but think that we like Abram were also asleep when God made this covenant with the Body of Christ, choosing us “before the foundation of the world.” We did not have to agree to it, we knew nothing of it. God seals us with the earnest of the spirit. God does the sealing, the choosing and the justifying. These are all included in our spiritual blessings in the celestials and are ours right now. We do not earn them, or wait for them. The spirit of God within us is crying “Abba Father” and it enables us to recognize God is our Father, our Creator and our Saviour is Christ. The next step is ours, we need to study God’s words written to and for us through our Apostle Paul, so that we can then be educated as to what God in Christ has done for us and how our blessings are different from Israel’s, we then, like Abram merely say “amen.” which is the same as saying, so be it…Lord. This is believing God!

It is only through a study of the letters (epistles) written to us by Paul from God and with the aid of the Holy Spirit that we come to understand who we are in Christ and what these spiritual blessings are and of our allotment which is in the celestials and not on earth with Israel or vice versa. This is why we must test things which differ. Our allotment is Christ’s allotment in heaven and our expectation is promised to shed these bodies of humiliation and we will find ourselves changed into the image of God, with a vivified glorified body.

What are all of our spiritual blessings in the celestials? We are declared righteous, we are justified in the flesh, we are indwelt by Christ, we are given the earnest of the spirit…an earnest is a guarantee to us, that a place in heaven with Him is guaranteed. We are sealed, we are sanctified. We are under no condemnation for any failing we may do here and now. WE are said “to have died with Christ and were buried with Christ and raised with Christ and are seated in the heavens with Christ” in spirit. We have been “given sonship”. We are “ambassadors for Christ” here and now while on this earth offering conciliation to the world as recorded at 2 Corinthians 5:19-21 Can we think of anything else we might need, a piece of land here on earth? No I think not! The only thing we need and yearn for is to be given our new bodies and to be free of this body of humiliation, to be out of this evil age we live in and to find ourselves with Christ, clothed in our new Glorified body just like His.

Let’s review these Covenants which differ: We can see some comparison with our covenant with the promise made with ABRAM with His being declared righteous without the Law, Abram was put to sleep while Jehovah passed through the offering. In those days when a covenant was made, an offering was split in half and the two parties walked between them, this sealed the covenant. Jeremiah 34:18-20. Like a handshake was used in our country or customs but in today’s world we have a written contract and both parties better read the fine print before signing it. Jehovah made the covenant with Abram while he was sleeping, this shows that Jehovah God Himself was the only one bound to that covenant and that He would see to it that the covenant was kept. He took the whole contract onto Himself. Genesis 15:9-18 Later, God changes Abram’s name to ABRAHAM and makes again this promise with him in which He asks for circumcision to be a sign of it. Genesis 17:4-14 Circumcision set Jehovah’s people apart from those not chosen. This was still an unconditional covenant even though Abraham agreed to be circumcised. Jehovah was bound by the first one to see it accomplished, even if Abraham failed or if the nation to come from him failed. Jehovah was bound to His promises to Abram. We could say that covenant was grandfathered in? No matter that Israel would fail, God would still bring it about! This is demonstrated in how that Abraham and Sarah when very old and past child bearing years, considered dead at 99 and 90 years of age. God makes them alive again, able to make a baby. This promise of a child, through which the promised seed would come, kept by Jehovah not Abraham, unable on his own to do so.

Within Israel’s history we then move forward to the Mosaic Covenant made with Israel. The people agreed to the terms and regulations of the Covenant of Law with its blessings through obedience along with its curses if they broke it. This was a conditional covenant based on law keeping with both parties bound by it. But God goes one step further, as He is bound by the first covenant made with Abraham and so He promises to take Israel back, even though she is unfaithful, He promises to cleanse her of her sins and to write His Law on their hearts, to marry her again in the Kingdom on earth which Jesus taught his disciples to pray for. This should make it clear who the New Covenant referred to in the Old Testament is for and who it will be made with and it is not the same covenant Paul speaks of for the Body of Christ. We are adopted into God’s family and receive our own spiritual covenant and blessings now which are to be kept separate from Israel’s promised New Covenant which is to come about in the millennial kingdom on this earth.

Sonship and Adoption: Israel is the “sonship” because of their covenant relationship with Jehovah. Read Exodus 4:22 Hosea 11:1-4 Paul tells us this at Romans 9:1-4 ” The truth am I telling in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifying together with me in His spirit, that my sorrow is great, and unintermittent pain is in my heart—for I myself wished to be anathema from Christ for my brethren, my relatives according to the flesh, who are Israelites, whose is the “sonship” and the glory and the covenants and the legislation and the divine service and the promises: whose are the fathers and out of whom is the Christ according to the flesh, Who is over all, God be blessed for the eons. Amen!” Note, covenants plural…God is not through with Israel…shame, shame on those who teach that He is! They are seeking to rob Him of the Glory He will receive through His work with that nation on this earth bring all nation to reconciliation!

From this sonship Israel strayed and became “the prodigal son” found in Luke 15:11-24 also “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” Mathew 10:5,6 15:24 For them to enter the Kingdom of God and enjoy their sonship again, they must be “begotten anew or born again” through the spirit. John 3:3-8 and Ezekiel 36:22-38 This term sonship in the Israeli Bible books applies strictly to Israel and concerns their earthly salvation and allotment in a future day of restoration. Isaiah 66:7-9 Ezekiel 36:22-38.

Now we can look at, Adoption or son placing “h uio the si’a” this means: “legally into the place belonging to a son.” Galatians 4:5-7 “we may be getting the place as a son. Now seeing that you are sons, God delegates the sprit of His Son into our hearts, crying Abba Father!” Ephesians 1:5 “designating us before for the place of a son” Gentiles who never had sonship and who were aliens, without hope and without God in the world. Acts 14:16 “God, who in bygone generations leaves all the nations to go their ways” By His grace through faith, we receive the adoption of sons and are made members of God’s family. Ephesians 2:19-22 “Consequently, then, no longer are you guests and sojourners, but are fellow citizens of the saints and belong to God’s family, being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, the capstone for the corner being Christ Jesus Himself, in Whom the entire building, being connected together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord: in Whom you, also are being built together for God’s dwelling place, in spirit”

Test the different words; first Paul speaks of an entire building of God which again is Gods overall family, his complete Kingdom taking in both, on earth and in heaven. Then Paul said in Whom you, also, always watch for those little words which connect one thought to another sometimes switching from one subject to another in this case, note the words, also and you. So he went from speaking of Gods entire family to a part of it, the body of Christ with the words, you also are. He is telling us, that we are a spiritual temple where God’s spirit dwells. Israel still looks to the day when her literal physical temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and the ruling saints will govern from it. Then in the Day of God which follows the Day of the Lord, and after the Millennial reign of Christ and the great White throne judgment we see that “the holy city new Jerusalem descending out of heaven” Revelation 21:1,2 This city will come down to the earth from heaven. That will be the home of the bride/wife/Remnant of Israel, this celestial city is what Jesus referred to when He said to his apostles, “I go to prepare a place for you.” John 14:2 We must recognize that Paul never refers to that city in relation to the Body of Christ; it would seem to me if we also were to be in it. Paul would have told us. We must let go of the mind set, taught to us from our youth on because of attending some sort of denominations that all saints go to heaven! The scripture do not support that. We will discuss this further in Chapter Three of this Manual. Let’s continue on with our sonship through adoption.

Romans 8:15, 23 “For whoever are being led by God’s spirit, these are sons of God…For you did not get slavery’s spirit to fear again but you got the spirit of sonship, in which we are crying Abba Father! The spirit itself is testifying together with our spirit that we are children of God. Yet if children, enjoyers also of an allotment from God yet joint enjoyers of Christ’s allotment if so be that we are suffering together, that we should be glorified together also. Paul alone speaks of “sonship” by adoption and the salvation with an allotment of glory in the heavens Philippians 3:20,1 “For our realm is inherent in the heavens, out of which we are awaiting a Savior also, the Lord, Jesus Christ, Who will transfigure the body of our humiliation to conform it to the body of His glory, in accord with the operation which enables Him even to subject all to Himself.” Notice the phrase Paul uses, “we are awaiting a Savior also” that little word, also, which implies someone else is waiting for their Savior. Yes, Israel also waiting for His return to the earth to rescue and redeem them while we wait to be called and snatched from this earth to meet with Him in the air.

In The Kingdom of God, He has a big family, made up of those living in the heavens composed of the Spirit world and of Humanity here on the earth. He chose the Physical nation of Israel to demonstrate the standard set by His Righteous Law through, these “are the sonship” and He chooses The Body of Christ to demonstrate His Grace through for mankind and to the celestial beings. For humanity who could never in the flesh live up to Gods righteousness, we are adopted into His family and given sonship. Both realms are in Gods family with each given a specific calling and place in that Household of God, placed in it through Christ’s shed blood to bless others and to be blessed.

The Israelites saw Jehovah’s power and might when they witnessed the many plagues in Egypt brought by Jehovah, aimed at putting down the false gods of the Egyptians. Watching as the Red Sea parted and allowed them to escape Pharaoh Armies, and watching those armies drowned as God closed the waters after Israel passed through safely. As they traveled through the desert they were led by a pillar of fire by night and a cloud by day. Moses strikes a rock giving them water. Manna fell from heaven fresh every day to feed them. Their sandals did not wear out. The people saw fearful displays of Gods power and many signs of His care and love for them and yet they could not keep the law and they could not be faithful, they continually failed. Nothing caused or enabled them to be faithful. Not Gods mighty Power or fear of Him caused them to love their Husbandly owner. It seems just the opposite as living in fear or under a dictatorship never generates love, the Law was a dictator. God knew this, His covenant was a demonstration of a Righteous Law that no man except Christ could live up too, that is why the Law is said to be death dealing. God showed them through their sacrificial system for sin that He would provide a way out of the condemnation of the Law and of the sin and death inherited from Adam.

We need to understand these people were not indwelt by Christ or the spirit of God and so it seems without Gods spirit upon or within, we humans are unable to believe and or obey even in the presence of His powerful signs. They had miracles and signs and the Prophets and Priests who told them what to do and when and who also were there to enforce the laws. These people later demanded a King, which God granted to them, very few were good kings as most led them astray. The spirit of God came upon those who God chose to prophesy and to record His words. Again this shows, without Gods spirit, a person cannot respond to spiritual things even those of us with the spirit do not recognize the complete plan of God for the ages and this spirit within us does not make us perfect in the flesh, we still err and sin daily. The spiritual blessings given to the Body of Christ are unconditional. God does it all for us through Christ. We have been placed in Christ and this takes care of all of this for us, we do not do it ourselves. We are declared righteous before God, right now. Israel is still waiting for her New Covenant and for God to grace and bestow His mercy on them by giving them their righteousness.

God is demonstrating through the Body of Christ the opposite of the Law and of God’s power enforcing the Law. Grace from God gives life through the indwelling of Christ. We were chosen before the foundation of the world and called to heaven. This is all God’s doing, we do not earn it or ask for it. WE are a picture of His future work with Israel in the Kingdom and I have to ask, if He freely graces us in this way and promises to grace Israel in the Kingdom, writing His Law on their hearts, forgiving them, taking them back in marriage. What of the unbelievers, who He has not yet called, how could they be given any less? What is an unbeliever, just someone without the spirit of God enabling them to believe? How do we get the spirit? God gives it.

This brings us again to the question of who does the choosing. We have seen it is God. The term, Free Will and our deciding on our own to follow Christ are not founded in scripture. The denominations teach we choose to serve God and at our accepting Christ we then receive these spiritual blessing which give us the indwelling…the sealing…the earnest of the spirit….etc. Yet we have seen through the scriptures that they have it backwards or the cart before the horse! Without the spirit from God we cannot believe, we believe because we are chosen…plain and simple. So the question should be, not who chooses but when does God choose us, thus giving us these spiritual blessings? For the past few years, Vance and I have wondered when exactly it is, that we receive the indwelling. We all have been taught it is at the point of believing but as I just said…how can we believe first with no spirit to help us to do so? That is where the unbelievers find themselves. We have some thoughts on when we receive the earnest of the spirit, to share here and welcome any comments on them. I think this may be something we cannot prove conclusively but we have had some questions come to our minds concerning some of the things Paul says and wondered if we are given hints or clues so I will add our thoughts here for your consideration.

Ephesians 1:13,14 tells us of receiving the sealing of the spirit. What was a seal in those days? A seal was a symbol of security placed on pouches or letters and on things like tombs, keeping others in or out, etc. Paul first mentions our sealing in 2 Corinthians 1:22 “Now He Who is confirming us together with you in Christ, and Who anoints us, is God, Who also seals us and is giving the earnest of the spirit in our hearts.” Ephesians 4:30 “And do not be causing sorrow to the holy spirit of God by which you are sealed for the day of deliverance.” These are just a couple of the “spiritual blessings” bestowed upon the Body of Christ referred to at Ephesians 1:3 How do we cause the Holy Spirit sorrow? By allowing ourselves to be deceived by Satan’s lies and myths and not holding to our God ordained sound doctrine through Paul and not recognizing the spiritual blessings freely given in grace.

Sealing for the believer is a sign of security, I can not find where the circumcision saints were sealed. Circumcising was the outward mark or visible sign of belonging for that nation. The circumcision saints did not experience this spiritual blessing, they were not sealed and so some did fall away as the physical sign did not prevent this for them. The 144,000 chosen out of Israel’s 12 tribes, it is said are going to be sealed and protected through the tribulation time period, there is no mention of the sealing of the Pentecostal saints other than Jesus did say those who were His, He would not lose and this pertained to the Apostles whom He chose for His remnant church. Read of the 144,000 at Revelation 7 and 14

We are sealed by the earnest of the spirit which is a down payment, like today in Real Estate when purchasing a property. An earnest payment is required which is a pledge that in the future; the complete payment will follow. In our case in the spiritual realm, it’s the pledge of our expectation, and not a hope. Israel hoped to be in their Kingdom on earth, their faithfulness was a requirement. Not so with the Body of Christ. Our sealing, and the earnest of the spirit, is the guarantee of the future deliverance from these bodies of humiliation at the rapture and that we will be given the new bodies which will then be the payment made in full and we will then be filled to the brim with God’s spirit.

So we asked the question at what point in our life does Christ choose us to be in the Body of Christ. Paul tells us at Ephesians 1:4 “We were chosen before the foundation or disruption of the world” and it is interesting his words at 2 Timothy 3:14,15 where Paul in speaking to Timothy he said “from a babe you were acquainted with the scriptures” Let’s examine this verse with the Greek word used “babe” which is “breathoss” Tracing this word in research shows this to mean “in the womb or at best on the breast” and referring to only about the first week after birth. Another word in that statement to Timothy, we wanted to understand was the word “acquainted” which means, to inherently know or to know all along. In the Greek, inherently, is “Oida” and there are two different words for know and the second and a different word for know or knowing is acquired knowledge and in the Greek that word is “gno si s” so this is then acquired or learned knowledge while Oida is inherent knowledge.

Inherent is defined by the dictionary as “to exist permanently and inseparably as a quality, attribute or element…to belong intrinsically” Or to know all along, this is inbuilt or indwelt and the other word, Gnosis, is acquired knowledge or the learning process and of being taught. Now, the questions we are having with this in seeking to understand what Paul meant with the use of this word inherently about Timothy as a Babe, the scriptures were known by him inherently so in this verse Paul is referring to inherent knowledge…to inherently know which is to know all along. This is not acquired knowledge from learning since a babe would not have acquired knowledge. A babe is not able to read and or learn all the scriptures, so we asked, how could a babe in the womb or at one week old inherently know the scriptures?

Now I realize some explain this to mean, His mother and grandmother read the scriptures while he was in the womb and this is how he knew them. I do not discount that this is beneficial for a child in the womb. But, without the spirit from God that child in the womb would not understand or inherently know the scriptures. The key here it seems to me, is that it is the spirit from God which inherently knows the scriptures. The Holy Spirit dictated them or breathed those scriptures. Paul stated they were inherent in Timothy as a babe. Thus we asked the question, are we given the earnest of the spirit in the womb or at our birth? It seems this is when we are chosen and this is why we then are able to recognize Gods Word when we hear it and that Christ is our Savior and Lord later in our life by means of the spirit within us, never by our flesh or with our soulish nature.

Paul tells us at 2 Timothy 3:18,17 “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” The word translated inspiration in the Greek is “theopneustos” and literally means…God breathed…..All scripture is God breathed. The indwelling spirit given to us from God, breathes in Gods Words; this is our life giving breath from God, our spiritual breath! Just as our physical body needs oxygen to live our indwelling spirit needs Gods Words to live, to breathe, to be awake, to grow and mature in truth, it needs God’s words.

So we find this verse interesting, as it seems to indicate that Timothy was already chosen in the womb or in the first week of his life. Now we next added into this research, something else Paul said in regards to his own calling at Galatians 1:15,16 “Now when it delights God, who severs me from my mothers womb and calls me through His grace, to unveil His Son in me that I may be evangelizing Him among the nations” Now why would Paul use this term; severs me from my mothers womb, if it was not that he recognized he had been chosen then. God had intended him for the office of an Apostle while in his mother’s womb and severed him at his birth; obviously Paul did not know this until after God opened his spiritual eyes to recognize this. God arranged the outcome of his life? This is different from when Paul tells us he was severed from Israel. It seems to me, that Paul did not believe his being saved, or chosen began on the road to Damascus or would he not have said, God chose me when I was at such and such an age and or God chose me on the road to Damascus? Again note that Paul on that road was not seeking Christ, he was not repenting of his rejection of Jesus. It was Christ, Who came to Saul and forcibly graced him and caused him to recognize Him as the Lord. As Saul, the Pharisee, he thought he was zealous for Jehovah and the Law and earning his own righteousness and thus he was persecuting those followers of Jesus believing them to be heretics.

These passages lead us to believe that we are chosen in Christ while in the womb and thus would seem to indicate that we have the indwelling spirit from birth and so this then is why spiritual things would be attractive to us and when hearing Gods Word being read or taught at home or in a church our spirit would respond to it, since that Word is filled with those God Breathed words. Paul speaks of those who are chosen, happening upon salvation and coming to a realization of the truth. By his own testimony He recognized with his experience on the Damascus road what had happen to him in his mother’s womb. Lets read 2 Timothy 2:10 “Therefore I am enduring all because of those who are chosen that they may be happening upon the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with glory eonian.” Paul says…the chosen happen upon the salvation…they are already chosen so already saved. The happening upon is, understanding what God had already done for us and so Paul also adds to this at Colossians 1:9 “Therefore we also from the day on which we hear, do not cease praying for you and requesting that you may be filled full with the realization of His will, in all wisdom and spiritual understanding”

My only thoughts on those who profess to be believers and yet reject the truth of Gods Word are, that these are the soulish or carnal believers of which Paul spoke of many times. They are thinking with only their fleshly or soulish heart and not the spiritual heart. I find it unfathomable for any believer, Graced in the beloved to continue to believe in the God defaming doctrine of Hellfire. Why do so many, when shown the possibility of it not being true, turn on us and will not even research it. Angry instead of being happy to learn unbelievers will not be tormented for eternity but will also one day be saved and glorify God. Instead they vehemently fight for the doctrine of Eternal Torment, holding onto revenge, hate and a punishment that out weighs the crime. These are human, soulish emotions and are not God given Grace, nor the spiritual understanding of a God of Love and mercy. They forget they are no better than the unbeliever; we all are born in sin and fail daily. Why would we not want the unbelievers to also be shown grace and be given the ability to believe just as we have been? We did not come to God on our own; if we had, our salvation would not be Grace, but we would have done something to earn it, but then of course the denominations teach that they do earn it and so they think they have chosen all on their own to serve God and this seems to inspire a self righteous attitude towards the unbelievers in the world.

To not have this Grace in our hearts, would be carnal indeed and I have no other explanation for the hard hearts that cling to the doctrine of millions doomed to suffer eternity in a mythical place of torment. We all must recognize what the issue really is. It is not our own salvation, but God receiving the Glory due Him as our Creator and our Savior. He receives the greatest glory from the worst of circumstances and the worst of sinners reconciled to Him. His Grace extended to the most vile of His creatures does not make Him a weak God but shows Him to be the Most High God of Love in all the Universe. Nothing threatens His sovereignty. He makes all evil into good as only He can and will do! God as Creator owns everything, why would He allow anything or anyone to be lost or stolen from Him by an inferior being such as the adversary or the will of humanity?

Hellfire or the theory of punishment in a mythical, underground world was believed in Babylon and also before her by the many other pagan nations. The Israelites became contaminated with this doctrine during their 70 years of captivity in Babylon. When we study the history of the Jews we will find after their release from Babylon, many did not want to return to Jerusalem, they liked where they were living. This I believe is why Peter went to Babylon…to herald the kingdom of Jesus Christ to the Jews living there.

From those years living in Babylon, many of their pagan teachings became part of the Jewish Talmud and so it became corrupted. The Talmud is like a Civil Book of rules or etiquette which the Rabbis use. A second Talmud has been found dating from that time of Babylonian captivity. It is corrupted with Babylonian beliefs. I will put a copy of one section of the corrupted one in Chapter Seven which relates to the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, a favorite passage of the Hellfire teachers, not understanding Jesus was not teaching Hellfire but ridiculing the Pharisees for their belief in it! Hells origin comes from the pagans and not the scriptures. This is why we find reference to it by only Jesus! Jesus did not teach anything outside of the Hebrew prophets and scriptures so he would not have been instituting a new doctrine of punishment as claimed by the Hellfire lovers, he exposed the Pharisees for the false teacher that they were, they were teaching hellfire and other myths adopted from pagan religions and philosophies.

That parable was directed at the Pharisees who were standing in the crowd listening to Jesus, who were clothed in their purple robes, fitting the description Jesus gave of the “rich man” and they knew exactly who He was talking about…them! Jesus placed them in their very own mythical place of torment and the beggar in the parable placed in Abraham’s bosom, the beggar depicting the common men of the Israel, and were chosen to be the Remnant church for the Kingdom, and who were replacing the Pharisees, the religions leaders of Israel. Jesus ministered to the poor, starving in spirit as a result of those religious leaders who had not been instructing them with Gods word but instead with lies and myths. Jesus places the common man in the place of honor, Abraham’s bosom, which is where the Pharisee had placed themselves. This is why the Pharisees hated Him so and sought to kill Jesus as He exposed them over and over for the hypocrites and liars that they were. The Pharisees also taught, if Israel would become moral or good, then their Messiah would come and establish the kingdom and they used Hellfire to scare them into obeying them, the Pharisees, not God and being moral, sound familiar?

How sad that the Body of Christ today is carrying on in the tradition of the Pharisees of Jesus day, blind to the truth of God’s Grace and His Plan of the ages to bring about the salvation of All. They are blind to the fact that God will be glorified through the saving of the unbeliever and the wicked. He only will receive His full Glory with the complete Reconciliation of the Universe. This vindicates God as He lives up to His own righteous standard of justice and mercy. “Creation subjected to vanity….involuntarily” Romans 8:18-25 It is God Who has subjected all Creation to evil in order for it to understand good and evil, love and hate, teaching us to appreciate the good and what Gods love is. For God to lose one person would be a failure. God does not fail. Instead the denominations hold dear many of these false doctrines from Babylon, the mother of false religion. The church today is steeped in her pagan doctrines, practices, traditions and holy days. In Paul’s day, he refuted the many lies and myths taught by the Gnostics, the pagans and even those who would not give up their Jewish customs and traditions, which I will elaborate on further in Chapter Seven of this Manual.

A closing thought about Israel’s evangel and their commission for the Kingdom on earth.

After Christ was resurrected, He met with the eleven and other disciples in the mountain and told them. “He would be with them until the conclusion of the eon” Matthew 28:20 This is of course still a future promise for after Christ returns. Christ will then have arrived for the second time. But the eon Christ is referring to is the next eon, which has in it the 1000 years reign of Christ. Those who were listening to Him then are now dead, sleeping in the dust, waiting to be raised after His advent in the raising of the “just” class. He will be with them throughout that eon, they will be ruling and reigning with Him from Jerusalem on this earth. The words of Jesus at Matthew 28:19,20 are prophetic for the Kingdom eon or age after His advent. They understood this and this is why they never baptized in “the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” They continued to baptize in the name of Jesus, using John’s baptism for repentance. Bullinger makes some interesting notes on this future baptism. He points out “it says in the name of…which is singular…and not names of as plural, as of three individuals. The name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit make up the One God.” Also, in that time period. Israel will be evangelizing the nations of the world, fulfilling Matthew 24:14 These will be Gentiles, not needing Johns baptism but the new baptism will be fitting for Gentiles as they come to know God in the person of the Son, Christ and they will also be witnesses of the Holy Spirit’s power as it will be operative with signs and miracles, bringing them to faith and their Creator.

A. E. Knoch points out in his commentary on this passage in Matthew 28:18-20 “This account is principally concerned with the rejection of the kingdom. How fitting that it should close with a preview of its establishment in the coming eon! The place is significant. Satan took Him to a high mountain to show Him the kingdoms of the earth. The transformation was on a mountain. The place speaks of His exaltation. This will not be realized until He comes in glory. He has not yet taken His great power. Revelation 11:17 The apostles never went out to all nations. On the contrary, Peter was opposed when he went to the proselyte Cornelius. Acts 11:3 They never baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. They used the titles of Christ intelligently when they baptized. They used “Jesus Christ” in baptizing Israelites, “Lord Jesus” for the Samaritans Acts 8:16 They never used “Christ Jesus” the title of His present heavenly glory. They never used the formula here given because they knew that it was reserved for the future kingdom proclamation. They never discipled the nations as such. The Lord was not with them till the conclusion of that eon, but left them soon after, when He ascended. This commission cannot be carried out until His return in power and glory to bless all nations through His people Israel.” That will be the next eon, in which the Messianic Kingdom of Christ will rule on earth.


July 8, 2014

The following is taken from the Harvard Law Review, Vol. XXXVII, 1932-1924 with my comments in brackets if any. This is not the complete Review but only portions.

The Federal Judiciary of September 24, 1789, was Senate Bill No. 1, in the First Session of the First Congress. No adequate account of this famous legislation has ever been written; and Ellsworth’s latest able and careful biographer stated in 1905 that “no complete history of the bill, can now be written.” [The authors go on to say that the original draft and bills have been found since that statement in 1905] The disclosure of this new evidence now makes it possible, by comparison with the statute as finally enacted, to write, for the first time, an accurate history of the progress of the Act through the Congress, and of the variations of the final Act from the original Draft Bill. Such a comparison reveals certain legal and historical surprises, and makes it certain that Madison was wrong in stating, in 1836 (when he was eighty five years of age and probably of failing memory), that “it was not materially changed in its passage into a law.” William Garret Brown stated “There is enough in the Journals of the two Houses and in the debates of the House of Representatives to sustain Madison’s impression that it went through without any radical change.” The new facts disprove this statement.

Four of the great changes may be particularly mentioned at this point. First, it appears that the United States District and Circuit Courts were intended to take jurisdiction over common law crimes, instead of being confined to crimes specifically defined by Congress, as the Draft Bill when introduced provided, and as later erroneously held by the courts. Second, the jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts in controversies between citizens of different States was made far more restrictive than the Draft Bill intended. Third,– a surprising feature –The Draft Bill contained no such provision as was contained in the much litigated Section 34 of the Act, which provided that “the laws of the several States, except where the Constitution, treaties or statutes of the United States shall otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law in the Courts of the United States, in cases where they apply.” [Do you have that, they did not exist. Who and why did they put them there?] This Section 34 was inserted as a Senate Amendment. Fourth — a fact of still greater consequence — it is apparent, from the manner in which the original draft of this Senate amendment constituting Section 34 was altered by its proposer before its proposal, that the word “laws” in this Section 34 was not intended to be confined to “statute laws,” as Judge Story held in the famous case of Swift v Tyson, but was intended to include the common law of the State as well as the statute law. Had Judge Story seen this original draft of the amendment, it is almost certain that his decision would have been the reverse of what it was. All these points are discussed at greater length later on in this article.

In view of these new sources of information, it seems that a revised history of the Judiciary Act is warranted, since knowledge of the additions, subtractions, deletions and amendments relating to the original draft may possibly afford assistance to Federal Courts in future interpretations of the Act. [People, they do not want to change it for to do so would overturn every case based on the Judiciary Act including Swift v Tyson and the Erie case]

[Rather than going into all 83 pages I will point out one flaw that about which no one in the patriot community has any idea and neither do 98 percent of the lawyers, A.K.A. Judges, etc, etc.

Section 10 of the Draft Bill (Section 9 of the Act) relating to the jurisdiction of the District Courts was changed in several important features. No one of all the changes in the Draft Bill was more significant than the following. The Draft Bill gave to the District Courts, “cognizance of all crimes and offences that shall be cognizable under the authority of the United States and defined by the laws of the same.” The italicized words make it clear that the framers of the Bill meant to confine criminal jurisdiction to crimes specifically defined by Congress, and to them only. In Other words, the framers clearly intended to exclude the Federal Courts from jurisdiction over common law crimes, and crimes under the law of nations. It will be recalled that, for many years after the passage of the Act, there was a heated political contest between the Federalist and the Jeffersonian parties as to whether the Federal Courts possessed such jurisdiction — a contest finally decided in the negative, as urged by the Jeffersonians, supported by the authority of the Federalist Judge, Samuel Chase. Yet many eminent Judges and lawyers maintained at the outset and continued long to maintain, that such jurisdiction over crimes at common law and under the law of nations was intended to be vested in the Federal Courts. It is a singular thing that no one appears to have investigated or cited the action of Congress on the original Draft Bill; for such action would seem to afford the strongest argument in favor of such a jurisdiction. It now appears, on comparison of the Draft Bill with the Act as passed, that by an amendment introduced in and adopted by the Senate, the restrictive clause–” and defined by the laws of the same” – was deliberately stricken out, thus leaving the District Courts with jurisdiction over crimes “cognizable under the authority of the United States,” without any limitation. The only rational meaning that can be given to this action striking out the restrictive words is, that Congress did not intend to limit criminal jurisdiction to crimes specifically defined by it. Had the Supreme Court consulted these Senate Files, it is probable that the decisions in United States v. Hudson,(55) in I812, and United States v. Coolidge,(56) in I816, might have been otherwise than they were.

55 7 Cranch (U.S.) 32 (1812). 56 1 Wheat. (U.S.) 415 (I816).

The jurisdiction of the District Courts contained in the Draft Bill was increased by the Senate by adding the words: “and shall also have jurisdiction exclusively of the Courts of the several States of all suits against consuls, or vice consuls, except for offences above the description aforesaid.” (57),

An interesting addition to the District Court jurisdiction was made by another amendment. The Draft Bill gave “exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, including all seizures under laws of impost, navigation or trade of the United States, where the seizures are made on waters which are navigable by the sea by vessels of ten or more tons burthen, within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas.” In view of the extreme fears expressed by opponents of the Federal system lest the right of jury trial should ‘be impaired, the jurisdiction thus granted to the District Courts, in the clause beginning with the words “including all seizures,” was extraordinary. For in England, the admiralty jurisdiction did not extend to such “seizures under laws of import, navigation or trade,” which, consequently, were triable, in that country, in a common law Court by a jury. Although in some of the Colonies, trials of such cases had been had in the Colonial Admiralty Courts without jury, it seems curious that the framers of this Bill should have deliberately included such cases of seizure within the admiralty jurisdiction of the new Federal Courts and should thus have deliberately enlarged the scope of such Courts and consequently the scope of trials without jury, beyond the scope then existent in England. But such was the effect of the phraseology of this portion of the Act, as the Supreme Court later held, Judge Samuel Chase saying that “the reason for putting seizures of this kind in admiralty side of the Court was the great danger to the revenue if such cases should be left to the caprice of juries “–a rather insufficient explanation, in view of the insistence on jury trial shown by the Congress throughout other portions of the Act. [As I have always said any revenue case of any nature be it IRS, driver license etc. is all admiralty and maritime in nature. Maybe now some of the skeptics will believe me if they haven’t already read Matthew P Benders, Benedict on Admiralty and the numerous cases I have cited in the past, which again you will see in the footnotes. I have maintained that State courts had admiralty jurisdiction but many a lawyer argued against me on this so now they eat crow by reading this from The Harvard Law Review. Here is an excerpt from “Benedict on Admiralty” —

…….. maritime legislation generally.(6) The Constitution, however, is a document which must be construed as a whole and it has always been interpreted(7) as investing the paramount legislative power in the Congress whether such power was sought to be derived from one or other of the express powers above mentioned, or as a necessary concomittant of and inherent in the grant of the judicial power.
“Commentators took that view, Congress acted on it, and the Courts including this Court [the Supreme Court] gave effect to it. Practically, therefore, the situation is as if that view were written into the provision.”(8) This interpretation was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co.(9) in these words:

“Article III, Section 2, cl. 1 (3d provision) of the Constitution and section 9 of the Act of September 24, 1789, have from the beginning been the sources of jurisdiction in litigation based upon federal maritime law. Article III impliedly contained three grants. (1) It empowered Congress to confer admiralty and maritime jurisdiction on the ‘Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court’ which were authorized by Art. I, Section 8, cl. 9. (2) It empowered the federal courts in their exercise of the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction which had been conferred on them, to draw on the substantive law ‘inherent in the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,’ Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 55, 52 S.Ct. 285, 76 LEd. 598 (1956), and to continue the development of this law within constitutional limits. (3) It empowered Congress to revise and supplement the maritime law within the limits of the Constitution. See Crowell v. Benson, supra, at 55.

“Section 9 of the First Judiciary Act granted the District Courts maritime jurisdiction. This jurisdiction has remained unchanged in substance to the present day.”

When the Constitution was adopted, the existing maritime law became the law of the United States subject to the power in Congress to modify or supplement it as experience or changing conditions might require. Congress thus has the paramount and undisputed power to fix, determine, alter and revise the maritime law which shall prevail throughout the country; and federal statutes, if constitutional, are paramount to any judicially fashioned rules of admiralty.H
Whatever may be necessary to the complete exercise of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction is in the covenant of the Union, and Congress may pass all laws which are necessary and
(6) Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205, 37 S. Ct. 524, 61 L. Ed. 1086 (1917), is perhaps the only case which relies solely on the combination of the granting of judicial power and the eighteenth power of Article 1, section 8 as general authority to legislate in respect of maritime law.

(7) Detroit Trust Co. v. Steamer Thomas Barlum, 293 U.S. 21, 55 S. Ct. 31, 79 L. Ed. 176 (1934); Panama Railroad Co. v. Andrew Johnson, 264 U.S. 375, 44 S. Ct. 391, 68 L. Ed. 718, 1924 A.M.C. 554 (1924).
(8) Panama Railroad Co. v. AndrewJohnson, N. 7, supra.
(9) Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354, 79 S. Ct. 468, 3 L. Ed. 2d 368, 1959 A.M.C. 832 (1959).

(10) Waring v. Clarke, 48 U.S. (5 How.) 441, 12 L. Ed. 226 (1847); The Lottawanna, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 558, 22 L. Ed. 654 (1875); Butler v. Boston & S.S.S.C., 130 U.S. 527, 9 S. Ct. 612, 32 L. Ed. 1017 (1889); Ex parte (jarneff, 141 U.S. 1, 11 S. Ct. 840, 35 L. Ed. 631 (1891); The Hamilton (Old Dominion S.S. Co. v. Gilmore), 207 U.S. 398, 28 S. Ct. 133, 52 L. Ed. 264 (1907); Atlantic Transp. Co. v. Imbrovek, 234 U.S. 52, 34 S. Ct. 733, 58 L. Ed. 1208 (1914); Southern P. Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205, 37 S. Ct. 524, 61 L. Ed. 1086 (1917); Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149, 40 S. Or. 438, 64 L. Ed. 834 (1920); Washington v. W.C. Dawson & Co., 264 U.S. 219, 44 S. or. 302, 68 L. Ed. 646 (1924); Panama R. Co. v. Johnson, 264 U.S. 375, 44 S. Ct. 391, 68 L. Ed. 748 (1924); Crowell v. Bensen, 285 U.S. 22, 52 S. Ct. 285, 76 L. Ed. 598 (1932); U.S.v. Flores, 289 U.S. 131, 53 S. Ct. 580, 77 L. Ed. 1086, 933 A.M.C. 649 (1933); Detroit Trust Go. v. Steamer Thomas Barlure, N. 7, supra; Swanson v. Marra Bros., 328 U.S. 1, 66 S. Ct. 869, 90 L. Ed. 1045 (1946). In Panama Ry. Co. v. Johnson, supra, the court said, “[T]here are boundaries to the maritime law and admiralty jurisdiction which inhere in those subjects and cannot be altered by legislation …” The limitation refers to Congress’ power to alter admiralty jurisdiction, not to the substantive law. Lucas v. “Brinkness” Schiffahrts (]es. Franz Lange, 387 F. Supp. 440, 1975 A.M.C. 1684 (E.D. Pa. 1974), appeal dismissed, (3d Cir. April 30, 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 866 (1975). Congress may not bring under the jurisdiction of the federal admiralty court a completely land-based accident or transaction, or remove from admiralty jurisdiction those types of accidents which occur on navigable waters.
(11) Royal Netherlands Steamship Co. v. Strachan Shipping Co., 301 F.2d 741 (5th Cir. 1962); and see Wilburn Boat Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 348 U.S. 310, 75 S. Ct. 368, 99 L. Ed. 337 (1955).

[and for those that say Driver laws are not maritime read this from Benedict, it tells you something without an-in- your-face description under the chapter Maritime Crimes]

the recent Supreme Court decision of United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, (a) in which the majority of the Court concluded that the action of customs officials in boarding and stopping a vessel without any “reasonable suspicion of a law violation” was indeed “reasonable” and consequently not violative of the fourth amendment. The Court articulated several factors upon which it based its decision:

1.19 U.S.C. § 1581(a), which authorizes customs officers to examine the manifest and other documents and papers by hailing and stopping the vessel is a “lineal ancestor” to section 31 of the Act of August 4, 1790, ch. 35, i Stat. 145, in which the First Congress clearly authorized the suspicionless boarding of vessels. This fact naturally led the Court to conclude that such boardings do not run afoul of the fourth amendment;
2. While random stops of automobiles away from borders are not allowable under the protections of the fourth amendment, stops at fixed checkpoints or at roadblocks are allowable. However, where commerce at sea provides clear access to the open waters and is quite different from highway traffic, alternative methods of searching vessels which differ from the “stop” approach are less likely to accomplish the government’s objective of deterring criminal activity;
3. The system of marking automobiles utilized by the states is considerably less complex than the types of documentation and external marking that the federal government requires for vessels at sea. Indeed, the government has a substantial interest in making sure that the vessel documentation requirements are complied with, especially where there is a great need to frustrate and apprehend smugglers.

Therefore, the Court concluded that while the intrusion made in vessel search cases might not realistically be termed “minimal, “it is indeed “limited” when balanced against the “substantial” state interest involved.
As a practical matter, most border searches are conducted pursuant to informer’s tips and the instinct of the experienced customs official in discerning nervousness in a suspected traveller. If probable cause or proof of the reliability of an informer were a necessary pre-requisite to customs searches, protection of the national borders would be difficult if not impossible without a more sophisticated surveillance system than is now used. While the search of a person’s body is not specifically contemplated by the present statutes authorizing border [also see 19 U.S.C. 482].

Back to Harvard Law Review
But while jurisdiction over such seizures on the seas was given by the Draft Bill to the District Courts sitting in admiralty, no jurisdiction over seizures by the Federal Government made elsewhere than on the high seas was vested in any Federal Court, and hence such cases were left entirely to the State Courts. (59) The Senate, however, now added greatly to the scope of Federal jurisdiction by inserting the following words: “and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land, or other waters than as aforesaid, made, and of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred, under the laws of the United States.”(6o) These cases, however, were not included within the admiralty jurisdiction of the District Court, but were left as suits at common law to be tried by a jury.

The anxiety to preserve the right of jury trial was shown by the insertion by the Senate, at the end of Section 9 of the Act: “and the trial of issues in (sic) fact in the District Court, in all causes, except civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, shall be by jury.” (61) An amendment, drafted by Maclay, and favored by Grayson and Bassett, to provide that” no District Judge shall give a vote in any case of appeal or error from his own decision, but may assign the reason of such his decision,” was adopted by the Senate(62)

Section 10 of the Act was a new Section, introduced by the Senate in order to make special provision as to Federal Courts
(58) See The Vengeance, 3 Dall. (U.S.) 297 (1796); United States v. Schooner Sally,: Cranch (U.S.) 406 (1805); United States v. Schooner Betsy, 4 Cranch (U.S.) 443 (1808); Whelan v. United States, 7 Cranch (U.S.) 112 (1812:); Ship Octavia, I Wheat. (U.S.) 20 (I816); Woodbury, J., dissenting, Waring v. Clarke, S How. (U.S.) 441, 483 {1847); The Eagle, 8 Wall. (U.S.) I5 (1869). See I Kent, Comm, 367. See also R. W. Greene, arguing in New Jersey Steam Nav.. Co. v. Merchants’ Bank, 6 How. (U.S.) 344, 376 (I848), and see Daniel, J’., dissenting, ibid., 409, 414.
(59) See The Sarah, 8 Wheat. (U.S.) 391 (I823).

(60) This amendment, in the Senate Files, is probably in Ellsworth’s handwriting.

(61)See Senate Files.. The Draft Bill had a clause substantially the same (but which was not broad enough, after the Senate had decided to insert its Amendments to Section 9) as follows: “And the trial of facts in both cases last mentioned shall be by jury.” It is to be noted that the District Court was given no equity powers. United States v. Nourse, 6 Pet. (U.S.) 470, 496 (I832).
(62) : See MaClay July 7.

[You will love this next section for those that argue you are a non citizen. You can use the federal courts and bring up this information from Harvard.]

The chief and only real reason for this diverse citizenship jurisdiction was to afford a tribunal in which a foreigner or citizen of another State might have the law administered free from the local prejudices or passions which might prevail in a State Court against foreigners or non-citizens. The Federal Court was to secure to a non-citizen the application of the same law’ which a State Court would give to its own citizens, and to see that within a State there should be no discrimination against a-citizens in the application of justice(79) There is not a trace any other purpose than the above to be found in any of the amendments made in I787-I789 as to this jurisdiction. The idea that a Federal Court in a State was to administer any other than the law of that State or were to discriminate in favor of a non-citizen, and against a citizen, or to administer law as an :entirely free and independent tribunal, never appears to have entered the mind of any one. But to make it perfectly certain that the Federal Courts were simply to administer State law, (79) Marshall, C. J., in Bank of the United States v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch (U.S.) 87 (i8o9): “The judicial department was introduced into the American Constitution under impressions, and with views, which are too apparent not to perceived by all. However true the fact may be, that the tribunals of the States will administer justice as impartially as those of the Nation, to parties of every description, it is not less true that the Constitution itself either entertains apprehensions on this subject, or views with such indulgence the possible’ fears apprehensions of suitors, that it has established National tribunals for the decision of controversies between aliens and a citizen, or between citizens of different States.” Wayne, .]’., in Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 How. (U.S.) 33I, 354 55): “The foundation of the right of citizens of different States to sue each other in the Courts of the United States, is not an unworthy jealousy of the impartiality of the State tribunals. It was a higher aim and purpose. It is to make the people think and feel, though residing in different States of the Union, their relations to each other were protected by the strictest justice, administered in Courts independent of all local control or connection with the subject matter of the controversy between the parties to a suit.” Pitney, J’., in Lankford v. Platte Iron Works Co., 235 U.S. 46I, 478 (1915): it “was established for the very purpose of avoiding the influence of local opinion.” Bradley, J, in Burgess v. Seligman, 107 U.S. 20, 34 (1882): its object ,” to institute independent tribunals which it might be supposed would be unaffected by local prejudices and sectional views…. ”

See Curtis, J., dissenting in Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. (U.S.) 393, 580 (1856): “Its purpose was to extend the judicial power to those controversies into which local feelings or interests might so enter as to disturb the course of justice, give rise to suspicions that they had done so, and thus possibly give occasion jealousy or ill will between different States. . .”
End footnotes.

the Senate amended the Draft Bill by adding Section 34, which in its final form read as follows: “The laws of the several States, except where the Constitution, treaties, or statutes of the United States shall otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law in the Courts of the United States in cases where they apply.” Unquestionably the addition of this Section was intended to remove the objections of those who had opposed the Constitution and which had been expressed in 1787 by a prominent Massachusetts man as follows:

“Causes of all kinds between citizens of different States are to be tried before a Continental Court. The Court is not bound to try it according to the local laws where the controversies happen; for in that case it may as well be tried in the State Court. The rule which is to govern the new Courts must therefore be made by the Court itself, or by its employees, the Congress …. Congress, therefore, have the right to make rules for trying all kinds of questions relating to property between citizens of different States …. The right to appoint such Courts necessarily involves in it the right of defining their powers and determining the rules by which their judgment shall be regulated… It is vain to tell us that a maxim of common law required contracts to be determined by the law existing where the contract was made; for it is also a maxim that the Legislature has the right to alter the common law.” (80)
[Isn’t that nice, Congress can change the common law and you people traded one King for another that is worse because the King could not change common law like Congress can. This is why the anti-federalist was so dead set against a Congress and their con-stitution. Just think, you elect these same criminals year after year and is it any wonder they will not respond to Schultz or anyone else? They are god]
Until Judge Story, in 1842, in Swift v. Tyson,81 decided that the word “laws” in this section did not include the “common law” of the State, and that the Federal Courts in a State were free to decide questions of general commercial law for them-selves, it had never been held that there was even any doubt about the matter. The sole object for which this jurisdiction is vested in the Federal Courts, Judge Johnson had said in 1820, “is to secure to all the administration of justice upon the same principles upon which it is administered between citizens of the same State.” The object, Chief Justice Taney had said in 1838, “was to make the rules of decisions in the Courts of the United States, the same with those of ‘the States, taking care to preserve (80) ,, Letters of Agrippa ,, (James Winthrop), Massachusetts Gazette, Dec. 11, 14, I787. (81) 16 Pet. (U.S.) 1 (I842). the rights of the United States by the exception contained in the same Section …. Justice to citizens of the several States required this to be done.” If this was so, then as has been said, Judge Story’s construction was “hardly possible, unless the purpose of the provision is ignored “; (82) but Story’s decision has been affirmed and extended by the Supreme Court from 1842 to the present day, with the result that, as to a large class of cases, that which was feared in 1787 has virtually taken place.(83) [ In other words, we, the men and woman in the states have been screwed if you haven’t already realized this.] The application of Story’s doctrine has resulted in the total reversal of the purposes for which Sections 11 and 34 were originally enacted. Diverse citizenship jurisdiction in the Federal Courts now, in many cases, instead of preventing a discrimination against a non-citizen, results in discrimination in their favor and against the citizen; and instead of making one law for all in a State, makes different law for citizen and non-citizen.

It now appears from an examination of the Senate Files, however, that if Judge Story and the Court had had recourse to those Files in preparing the decision in Swift v. Tyson, it is highly probable that the decision would have been different. and that the word “laws” in Section 34 would have been construed to include the common law of a State as well as the statute law. This conclusion will probably be reached by anyone who examines the original slip of paper on which the amendment containing Section 34 was written, and which is, with little doubt, . in Ellsworth’s handwriting.

(82) J.. B. Heiske, “Conflict between Federal and State Decisions.” 16 Am. L. Rev. 743, 747. “It remained for Mr. Justice Story to construe ‘ laws ‘ as ‘ statute laws,’ and so to defeat a great part of the object contemplated by the Constitution. If the reason for the grant of jurisdiction had been kept in view, it is inconceivable that such a construction could have been adopted.” GEORGE WHARTON ‘PEPPER, THE BORDERLAND OF FEDERAL AND STATE DECISIONS. See also William Trickett, “The Non-Federal Law Administered in Federal Courts,” 40 Am. L. Rev. 819.

(83) As an example of this, see the long line of municipal bond cases, in which the Federal Courts administer the law in one way in favor of a non-citizen, and the State Courts the law in another way, in favor of a citizen. “It is to be observed that the parties were to have been put on terms of equality- a construction which favors a non-resident brings about an evil as great as that which exists when bias is exerted in favor of a resident. A construction which makes a common carrier liable to non-residents in cases where it is not liable to residents brings about a state of affairs as unjust as if the reverse of that condition were true.” GEORGE WHARTON PEPPER,supra
[Not so today people – we are discriminated to the hilt, citizen and non citizen, to satisfy the fascist government, of which it truly is when looking at the private banking cartel operating the country via its purse strings. Then there are all the other corporations like the phone companies, drug companies etc etc. that actually make and collect taxes that the government cannot legally impose. Read the Cases of Importance on the atgpress web page to see what I mean as only one example. Do pull this Harvard Law Review and read and weep as you go along as there are 83 pages to read containing so much more info that you have to rethink and redo all your beliefs in the courts, and always remember the constitution was for them and not you. They just like you to think that so you can slide right into their trap when saying “I want my constitutional rights”. Well there are no constitutional rights and never have been, so your words are what kill your arguments. Your so-called “constitutional rights are mere privileges that a subject is given and called a right. The constitution is a charter of corporate powers, nothing more, nothing less, and it tells them what they can do and what they can’t do. And for them to have power over you, you must concede to their jurisdiction and you do by mouthing those mythical words “I want my constitutional rights,” for only subjects of the Corporate board can have anything to say on “constitutional (privileges) Rights.” That United States, is only Congress assembled and does not mean the executive or judiciary departments. That they are, departments of Congress Assembled. That’s why the Judiciary did not write the 1789 Judiciary Act, Congress did and you see it in the Harvard Law Review. One final thing I have to say on Admiralty and Revenue and that is for you to pull two cases that flat out states IRS revenue matters are based on Maritime.

They are United States v. $3,976.62 in Currency, One 1960 Ford Station Wagon Serial No. 0C66W145329 347, Federal Rules Decisions 564. Head note #1 states “Although, presumably for purposes of obtaining jurisdiction for forfeiture under Internal Revenue Laws is commenced as proceeding in admiralty, after jurisdiction is obtained proceeding takes on character of civil action at law, and at least at such stage of proceedings, Rules of Civil Procedure control, 26 U.S.C.A. (I.R.C. 1954) § 7323 (a); 40 U.S.C.A. § 304i; Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. Rules 55 and (c), 60 and (b), 81(a)(2), 28 U.S.C.A. Admiralty Rules 2, 10, 21, 28 U.S.C.A.; 28 U.S.C.A. § 1355”

And this case;
United States of America v ONE 1966 CHEVROLET PICKUP TRUCK et al. Civ. A. No. 526 cited at 56 Federal Rules Decision 459 where in they state the controlling laws are, 26 U.S.C.A. (I.R.C. 1954) §§ 7325 (3); Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims, Rules A, C (4,6), 28 U.S.C.A..; Federal Rules Civ. Proc. Rule 60 (b) (1,2) Fed. Rules, Civ Proc. Rules 55 (b), (1,2), 60, 28 U.S.C.A.
Yes, Title 28 is totally based on Admiralty and is the admiralty law Title for the Congress to operate under their 1789 Judiciary Act and the process is Civil, when you are hit with a “Revenue crime”. Now how many knew that revenue crimes are a Civil Matter? You have a lot to learn dear reader.

As Always The Informer June 1, 2003

How the government got you in its clutches, slave

July 8, 2014

You did it to yourself through citizenship that you claimed because you were told to be a citizen all your life by the public fools system, or what they call the public school system.

Little known to most people, but practiced every day in the public fool system by the children, till they knew it by heart is the pledge of allegiance. At all ceremonies outside the school people recite the pledge of allegiance by rote and frown on anyone near by that don’t. It is so ingrained in the people, I call them slaves, and rightly so. To be polite, you/they are servants of the Master no doubt about that.

I had written many articles on atgpress on why, but very few heed what is written and yet they still whine and complain and say how they (government) can do that to us because we have God given rights, that they can’t do that. MY and I cap MY, for a reason. It’s MY (your) constitution because I (past lineage) created government and we are the rulers. Well sadly that myth has been fostered on us by those in power and no “we” did not create any government nor did the people ever create any written document called a constitution and I do go into that in atgpress articles. I made it more evident in my book called “The New History of America”. The last article I wrote on citizenship had reference to allegiance. I will wager that went right over peoples’ heads whether educated or not. It’s not something people have in the back of their minds. Well let me say that it is a big deal and should be in the back of every ones minds. Here is an article that came across the Internet today that will bring into perspective what you are about to read from Black’s Law 2 nd Ed. The small portion of the government propaganda from Statement of Nathan J. Hochman, Tax Division’s Assistant Attorney General, Announcing Creation of the National Tax Defier Initiative WASHINGTON April 8, 2008- are these few sentences—130 million Americans voluntarily engage in this ritual every year. These individuals participate because they know that with the privileges (what privileges?) that the United States has given them come the responsibilities and obligations of citizenship. Former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ saying states it best: “Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society.”

Now how did you get privileges and where did those God given right go? Well we shall see below what you did to yourself. Now if you will, find the passage in the bible where the people wanted a King and the Lord, who was their King said; if you leave me and cling to a King I cannot help you . Or close to that. He said you can’t have two Masters, it’s Me or Mammon. What did the Lord Almighty want? He wanted Allegiance. That’s it, plain and simple. So let’s see why you no longer have any “God given rights” you claim to have, right from the government’s own Law book and if you don’t think so, you are sadly mistaken. I do highlight these words that enslave you and the god given rights you tossed out the window when taking away allegiance to the Lord and gave it to your new master, willingly I might add. And if this WAS REALLY a Christian Nation, why did we give up total allegiance to the Lord Almighty and let a bunch of Mammon creates a new religion, give it a constitution and say Join us as we are your new savior. Give us the allegiance when becoming a member of our church and we will give you all the privileges (because we can’t give you rights the Lord gave you, under their breath) that you will ever need and protect you, but it will bear a huge cost laid upon you. We will create so many laws you won’t know what to do when we attack you for wanting out of your slavery you so willing entered into that our con job which we wrote won’t help you out of your willing slavery in your total allegiance we request of you.

Blacks Law 2 nd Edition
ALLEGIANCE . By allegiance Is meant the obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the government under which he lives, or to his sovereign in return for the protection he receives. It may be an absolute and permanent obligation, or it may be a qualified and temporary one. The citizen or subject owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign, or at least until, by some open and distinct act, he renounces it and becomes a citizen or subject of another government or another sovereign. The alien, while domiciled in the country, owes a local and temporary allegiance, which continues during the period of his residence . Carlisle v. U. S. , 16 Wall. 154, 21 L. Ed. 426; Jackson v. Goodell, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 191; U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark , 169 U. S. 649, 18 Sup. Ct 456, 42 L. Ed. 890; Wallace v. Harmstad, 44 Pa. 501.
“The tie or ligamen which binds the subject [or citizen] to the king [or government in return for that protection which the king [or government] affords the subject, [or citizen.” ] 1 Bl. Comm. 366. It consists in “a true and faithful obedience of the subject due to his sovereign.” 7 Coke, 4&. Allegiance is the obligation of fidelity and obedience which every citizen owes to the state. Pol. Code Cal. § 55.

In Norman French. Alleviation; relief; redress. Kelham.

— Local allegiance. That measure of obedience which is due from a subject of one government to another government, within whose territory he is temporarily resident.—

Natural allegiance. In English law. That kind of allegiance which is due from all men born within the king’s dominions, immediately upon their birth, which is intrinsic and perpetual, and cannot be divested by any act of their own. 1 Bl. Comm. 369; 2 Kent, Oomni. 42.

In American law. The allegiance due from citizens of the United States to their native country, and also from naturalized citizens, and which cannot be renounced without the permission of government, to be declared by law . 2 Kent , Comm. 43—49. It differs from local allegiance, which is temporary only, being due from an alien or stranger born for so long a time as he continues within the sovereign’s dominions and protection. Fost. Cr. Law, 184.

Now do you all see how you are mere slaves, serfs, subjects, whatever you want to call yourselves? Your questions are all answered here. Now all the religions and their preachers are in on this because they all know we were supposed to owe complete allegiance to the Lord Almighty and none other. That’s why the preachers are serving the state and mammon with being false preachers that The Lord mentioned in the Bible. No one reading this is then a true Christian despite your rants and raves you are. If you have a Constitution, if you created government, if you are a citizen of the State or United States, then you are not a citizen of the household of the Lord Eph 2-19, and abide by His Laws, are you? To whom do you owe allegiance, The Lord or the master called the US or state? Don’t you say you are a citizen of so and so state even if you don’t claim US citizenship? Well let me tell you the states are mere territories of the United States and as such it makes no difference you owe no allegiance to the Lord Almighty. Don’t believe me? Try renouncing very publicly your allegiance to either State or United States and see what happens as stated in Black’s definitions above. Don’t they say “ which cannot be renounced without the permission of government, to be declared by law .”

The Informer April 2008

Contrary to all beliefs that you, the slave, yes you are still in bondage to the original corporation your corporate citizenship is based on. Your corporate citizenship was determined by Treaty of 1783 and other treaties. After reading the words of this treaty document, which by the way is well over 1400 pages, you can see why slaves/subjects/serfs/citizen classification of man and woman are not sovereign and never were, even under Roman law. I say this because being a corporate citizen is subject of the actions of corporate sovereigns, law makers, internationalists that make international agreements.

The evidence found in these documents such as the Treaty of 1783 was violated by both the United States and Britain and required the 1792 Jay Treaty to compensate for the breach of the contract ( Treaty) and that was also breached by both parties. Even that did not work and hence the Treaties were absolved and the Secret Treaty of Varona came into play as the controlling Treaty affecting all of us. So much for believing that you, the man and woman, were ever sovereign and that you created this god forsaken criminal organization passing itself off as “your government”.

If you can obtain this document you will learn a lot about your slavery and why they ( so called government) want you to accept citizenship status as all debtors in possession having no rights and no claim to any land as you are all tenants on the land expected to pay all debts they cause/create/establish. You see what I mean Brian? the point is if we are the people of the people by the people, why have we bee standing in the opposite legal position of that status ever since these treaties supposedly settled the Kings hash back then? Citizens are slaves no sovereigns. Now we have a crime scene here, we have perps, my point I’ve tried to get across to you is the investigation cannot stop with the thugs you see at the crime scene, we have to connect them to the rest of the syndicate so to speak or those orchestrating these crimes get off scott free. They left a legal paper trail in all of their international agreements.

The reason it is important to comprehend the real history behind all of this deception, say from the Concession of King John of 1213 to the Pope forward through all of the international agreements at least to the end of the constitutional convention is because once we know the truth of what is taking place before our eyes, we lose the anger. We find some peace of mind.

America never stopped being a British Colony and those documents prove it. I really dig LAW LIBRARIES because its all in there.


July 8, 2014

For those who doubt the balance of power between the Rothschilds, British Royalty and; the Papacy, I have compiled the following collection of information showing verifiable Papal & Royal knighthoods bestowed on the Rothschilds. These do not include any deduced or hearsay knighthoods. Note that in the Grand scheme of things these knighthoods are not even from the most elite of such orders, e.g. the Garter or the Bath to name but two. I would draw your attention to the two following articles which reveal many of the covert connections in European (and; thus international) finance, politics, military and; intelligence. These give a taste of the extent of influence of Catholic and; Papal-loyal elites, including knighthood orders such as the SMOM (Knights of Malta) and; Franco-Neapolitan branch of the Constantinian Order. The Venetian & Genoese aristocracy and; their so called Black Nobility descendants are given some context here too:

** Italy’s Black Prince: Terror War Against the Nation-State

** Le Cercle and the Struggle for the European Continent

There are other good sources that touch on the Vatican’s wealth, including David Yallop’s “In God’s Name” (which is by no means an anti-Catholic polemic). How anyone can think that the Rothschilds are the pinnacle of power is beyond me. Very powerful? Yes. The mind behind the all-seeing eye? No way. We have to look much deeper beyond these Kabbalistically-minded businessmen. While not wishing to diminish the truth about their influence, we must keep things in perspective.Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, former head of the now British Rothschild banking interests (now united with the French Rothschild banking interests & overseen since 2003 by David René de Rothschild) being interviewed on intelligence-controlled television & his son David Mayer de Rothschild on the Alex Jones radio show? Hilarious. Evelyn de Rothschild US & UK TV interviews, late 2008:

** Evelyn de Rothschild U.K. Interview 2008

Watch the end of the latter one for some humour. The English interviewer was most pleased with his encounter! David Mayer de Rothschild interviewed by Alex “C.I.A. asset, Jesuit Coadjutor” Jones on the matter of Live Earth concert, which event took place on the Kabbalistically-significant 7/7/07:

** Alex Jones – David Mayer De Rothschild Interview

The Jesuit Superior-General Adolfo Nicolas, Pope Benedict XVI, SMOM Grand Master Matthew Festing, Constantinian Grand Masters the Duke of Castro & Duke of Calabria, Queen Elizabeth II: would any of them lower themselves in this manner? No chance. Most people have only heard about the Pope & the Queen out of that lot. They make fork-tongued speeches for the Profane to accept on face value. Evelyn de Rothschild was invested as a Knight in 1989, though not of any Order that I have been able to find. This would mean that he is a Knight Bachelor. Some conspiracy sites state that he is a Knight of the British Empire, however I have only been able to confirm that his dynastic cousin Lord Jacob is a knight of that order:

** Sir Evelyn Robert Adrian de Rothschild

** Knight Bachelor

Lord Jacob (the 4th Baron) Rothschild was made a Member of the Queen’s Order of Merit (personally selected & bestowed by the Monarch, this is directly below the rank of Knight Grand Commander of the Order of the Bath in terms of honour) in 2002 & Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire in 1998. Note that his title of Baron Rothschild is a UK title going back to 1885. He is also – & perhaps confusingly – the 5th Baronet Rothschild, a UK title going back to 1847 & the current Baron von Rothschild, an Austrian Empire title dating back to 1822. We should also note that in 1985 he was made a Commander of the Order of Henry the Navigator of Portugal:

** Sir Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild

His father Lord Victor (the 3rd Baron) Rothschild was made a Knight Grand Cross of the British Empire in 1975 & was also a Knight of the Queen’s Order of St John:

** Sir Nathaniel Mayer Victor Rothschild, 3rd Baron Rothschild

The Queen, as Sovereign of the Order of St John (& of the Order of Sts Michael & George, which just recently bestowed an Honorary Knighthood on Jesuit/Vatican asset & Freemason Shimon Peres) is the head of a franchise of the Pope’s Order of Malta, the SMOM. Thus she is a Dame of Malta. As the Rothschilds defer to Queen, so do they both defer to the Papacy & ultimately to the Jesuit General. For good databases of Sir Evelyn & Lord Jacob’s (& Lord Victor’s) New World Order-related connections, see:

** Lord Jacob Rothschild (and his father Victor)Sir Evelyn de Rothschild

There is also a bio for the French Baron Edmond de Rothschild there:

** Baron Edmond de Rothschild

The current Lord Rothschild’s son, Nat, has no such honours & nor does his cousin David Mayer de Rothschild, nor does the united French & British Rothschilds banking head David René de Rothschild. And nor have any of their other respective paternal ancestors other than those listed above, as far as my research has turned up:

** Check (1)

** Check (2)

** Check (3)

Note that the Great Great Great Great (yes, that’s four Greats!) Grandfather of Lord Jacob Rothschild & the Great Great Great Grandfather of Sir Evelyn & David René de Rothschild – Mayer Amschel Rothschild, the founder of the Rothschild international banking dynasty, was made an Imperial (Holy Roman Empire) Crown Agent in 1800:

** Mayer Amschel Rothschild

Evelyn de Rothschild’s Grandfather Leopold de Rothschild was invested as a Commander, Royal Victorian Order (C.V.O.) in 1902. Leopold’s brother Sir Nathan Mayer Rothschild, the Great Grandfather of Lord Jacob Rothschild, was invested as a Knight Grand Cross, Royal Victorian Order (G.C.V.O.), also in 1902. Leopold & Nathan Mayer’s parents were Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild and Charlotte de Rothschild. Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild was senior partner of NM Rothschild and Sons in 1836.

** Leopold de Rothschild

** Sir Nathan Mayer de Rothschild, 1st Baron Rothschild

** Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild

Lionel Nathan’s father was – confusingly – another Nathan Mayer & the son of Mayer Amschel. This Nathan Mayer was the ancestor of both Sir Evelyn & Lord Jacob. His brother (another of the original (in)famous five sons of Mayer Amschel) Jame Mayer was the ancestor of David René de Rothschild. I will note here that at the bottom of this focus on the Rothschilds I have selected some career & business-related information from Wikipedia to get some up-to-date, mainstream information on the prominent Rothschilds to use as a quick comparison of one family member with another & for comparing with more conspiracy-orientated material. Now for some bankers information more directly related to the American side of things, note that US financial magnate J.P. Morgan (who escaped death by not going on the Titanic that he was booked to travel on) died appropriately enough in Rome & was a Knight of the Papal-loyal House of Savoy’s Order of Sts Maurice & Lazarus:

** J.P. Morgan

** Order of Saints Maurice and Lazarus

And of course, from 1918 J.P. Morgan, Jr’s lawyer & frontman Elihu Root headed the club that became the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921, which Root was a leading member of & it is of course no surprise that J.P. Morgan’s Chief Counsel was the first C.F.R. President:

** Morgan and Rockefeller involvement

** Download Book – The Vatican Billions For Free

** Excerpt From “Does the Vatican Hold Your Mortgage?” by William Thomas

The Fed gets its orders from the Queen Mum of All Banks, the Bank of England – aka, the Bank of Rothschild. Considered by many to be the world’s most powerful institution – the power behind all presidencies, dictatorships and thrones – does the Bank of England answer to any other bank? Well, yes, actually. The Bank of Rome began opening branch offices in Venice in 1587. Bank of Rome = Vatican Bank controlled by the Jesuit General, aka the “Black” (hidden, shadowy) Pope. The Jesuit’s Bank of Rome opened its Bank of England branch in 1694. The first bank to be named after a country, the Bank of England had nothing to do with the British government – except to own it through privately held, interest-compounded debt. Unaccountable to either the Queen or Parliament, the misleadingly labeled “Bank of England” finances the throne, the British prime minister, parliament and much of the planet out of “The City” located in central London. All major British banks have their main offices in this “Square Mile” – as well as 70 U.S. banks. Throw in the London Stock Exchange, Lloyd’s of London, the Baltic Exchange (shipping), Fleet Street (publishing and newspapers), the London Commodity and Metal exchanges – and you are looking at Earth’s financial axis. (Descent into Slavery) The City operates as a sovereign state, just like the Vatican. Since 1820, the Rothschilds have traditionally chosen The City’s Lord Mayor. Back in the USA, as author Eric Phelps explained in an interview just before publication of his secrecy-shredding Vatican Assassins, (which was held up to include corrections by sympathetic Jesuits) – the Vatican’s Black Robes “own and control” the Federal Reserve Bank “by proxy, through the Knights of Malta, with their various trusts and so on. They never own anything outright; they always own it through a trusted third party.” … “All roads do lead to Rome … We have the Federal Reserve begat by the Bank of England begat by the Bank of Rome. Similarly, the Bank of Canada is an offspring of the Bank of England, which in turn is a child of the Bank of Rome – aka, the Vatican Bank. And the Vatican, as everyone “knows” is run by the CNN-featured “White” Pope. Left untranslated is the coronation moment when the new Pontiff is told in Latin: “Take thou the tiara adorned with the triple crown, and know that thou art the father of princes and kings, and art the governor of the world.” [Vatican Assassins] … According to Baron Avro Manhattan, author of a jaw-dropping series of Vatican books, “Many historians and researchers and one American Congressman stated that: ‘The Vatican through the Jesuit Order controlling the Illuminati is in control of the United States Federal Reserve.’” (Vatican Billions by Avro Manhattan)** Check

“It is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” -Pope Boniface, Unam Sanctam (1302) … we’re beginning to see how more than 150 years ago, the General of a subversive military power called the Jesuits could brag to Duke de Brissac, “From this room, your grace, I govern not only Paris, but China – not only China, but the whole world – and all without any one knowing how it is done.” (Constitution of the Jesuits 1843) National and personal sovereignty haven’t improved much since. As Baron Avro Manhattan put it, the Pope “doesn’t have to pray for divine intervention to operate the levers of economic power – he merely has to give instructions to his officials in the Vatican Bank. Only the pope and a couple of top bank officers know precise details of its operations… This secrecy is one of the main reasons why few people know that the papacy directs one of the world’s major financial corporations.” The Vatican likes to point out that it’s going broke running Vatican City. But Cardinal Edmund Szoka, the Vatican’s unofficial finance minister, told Money Week that the Vatican’s assets total some $5 billion. Vatican City “has a separate financial statement,” he added. According to Baron Manhattan’s research: “The Vatican has large investments with the Rothschilds of Britain, France and America, with the Hambros Bank, with the Credit Suisse in London and Zurich. In the United States it has large investments with the Morgan Bank, the Chase-Manhattan Bank, the First National Bank of New York, the Bankers Trust Company, and others. The Vatican has billions of shares in the most powerful international corporations such as Gulf Oil, Shell, General Motors, Bethlehem Steel, General Electric, International Business Machines, T.W.A., etc. ” A nationally syndicated Catholic priest has stated, “The Catholic Church must be the biggest corporation in the United States. We have a branch office in every neighborhood. Our assets and real estate holdings must exceed those of Standard Oil, A.T.&T., and U.S. Steel combined. And our roster of dues-paying members must be second only to the tax rolls of the United States Government.” (The Vatican Billions) “But this is just a small portion of the wealth of the Vatican, which in the U.S. alone, is greater than that of the five wealthiest giant corporations of the country,” Baron Manhattan explains. “The Catholic church is the biggest financial power, wealth accumulator and property owner in existence.” (Vatican Billions) Don’t forget to throw in more than 18,000 works of art. (Fortune Dec 21/87) The Vatican’s gold treasure alone has been estimated by the United Nations World Magazine to amount to several billion dollars. The Independent has independently confirmed that “the Vatican Bank – Istituto per le Opere di Religione – manages more than $4 billion in assets. It does not reveal its profits or dividends, which are paid directly to the Pope. It enjoys the status of a central bank and has a dealing room adorned with crucifixes and papal portraits where 20 traders work .” (Independent Apr 19/02) …

Quote: Early in the 19th century the Pope approached the Rothschilds to borrow money. The Rothschilds were very friendly with the Pope, causing one journalist to sarcastically say “Rothschild has kissed the hand of the Pope. . . Order has at last been re-established”
Derek Wilson: ”Rothschild: The Wealth and Power of a Dynasty”, p. 101

** Check

“Carl Mayer (Kalman) Rothschild (*1788-†1855, Oesterreich) (Not to be confused with his son Mayer Carl referenced below)He even granted Pope Gregory XVI cash injections and was received on January the 10th 1832 in audience, the kiss on the hand allowed and the Order of Saint George awarded.” [Possibly a medal from the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George. See:

** Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George

“Baron Carl Mayer de Rothschild was born in 1788. … He is the son of Mayer Amschel Rothschild and Gutle Schnapper. … He was the founder of the Naples branch of Rothschilds, which after the unification of Italy returned to Frankfurt. He lived at Naples, Italy.”

** Baron Carl Mayer de Rothschild

Also See:

** Carl Mayer von Rothschild

Amschel Mayer Rothschild
(Not to be confused with his father Mayer Amschel referenced below )

“Amschel Mayer Rothschild was born in 1773. He was the son of Mayer Amschel Rothschild and Gutle Schnapper. He died in 1855. … He continued the family business at Frankfurt. He was created Baron Rothschild (Austrian Empire) on 29 September 1822. On his death, his business eventually passed into the hands of the Naples Rothschilds.”

** Amschel Mayer Rothschild (1)

** Amschel Mayer Rothschild (2)

Wears a (Order of Malta, Order of St John, Johanniterorden) Maltese cross. After all Amschel Mayer was the first son of the old Rothschild, Mayer Amschel, and took over the head office in Frankfurt.

Baron Mayer Carl de Rothschild (Not to be confused with his father Carl Mayer referenced above) Baron Mayer Carl Rothschild was born in 1820. He is the son of Baron Carl Mayer de Rothschild and Adelheid Hertz. … Baron Mayer Carl Rothschild lived at Naples, Italy. He lived at Frankfurt-am-Main, Hessen, Germany.”

** Baron Mayer Carl RothschildOnly the decoration to the left (the gentleman in the photo’s right ) could be Jewish – the others rather not. Star of the Knight Grand Cross of the British Empire, above the Order of Malta or Order of St John’s Maltese Cross, I believe. The source of this photo appears to be:

** Check

Thus, if the gentleman in the photo above is Baron Mayer Carl Rothschild – as appears to be the case, as referenced at the above academic site – then it is most interesting & curious that this Italian & German-based Rothschild was honoured by the British Monarch, assuming that my identification of the 8-pointed star is correct.

Mayer RothschildBelow seems to be dangling a Christian (ostensibly Christian, in fact Pagan Romanist ) cross
Not to be confused with his son Amschel Mayer referenced above. “Mayer Amschel Rothschild was born on 23 February 1743/44. He was the son of Amschel Moses Rothschild and Schönche Lechnich. … Mayer Amschel Rothschild was an Imperial (Holy Roman Empire) Crown Agent in 1800.”
** Check (1)

** Check (2)

Focusing on the more prominent Rothschilds, here’s a selection of career-related information from Wikipedia:

Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild:
** Check

“He is a shareholder in Rothschild Continuation Holdings, the Swiss-based holding company for the Rothschild interests which has positions in many of the family businesses, including the bank N M Rothschild & Sons. After resigning from the bank, Jacob Rothschild went on to found J. Rothschild Assurance Group (now St. James’s Place) with Sir Mark Weinberg in 1991. In 1989, he joined forces with Sir James Goldsmith and Kerry Packer, in an unsuccessful bid for British American Tobacco. His main business interests now are RIT Capital Partners plc, an investment trust company with net assets under management of £1700m (Aug 2008), of which he is Chairman, Spencer House Capital Management LLP founded with Richard Horlick (formerly CIO of Schroders), and Spencer House Partners, a “mini merchant bank” headed by Rothschild and Ronald Cohen of Apax Partners. He also retains many other venture capital and property interests. On 17 November 2003, he took up his post as deputy chairman of BSkyB. From his headquarters in St James’s Place in London, Jacob Rothschild has cultivated an influential set of clients, business associates and friends who have extended his interests far beyond the normal scope of a banker. He was a close personal friend of Diana, Princess of Wales and maintains strong personal and business links with Henry Kissinger. His country estate has been a regular venue for visiting heads of state including Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Margaret Thatcher received French President François Mitterrand there at a summit in 1990. He hosted the European Economic Round Table conference in 2002, attended by such figures as James Wolfensohn, former president of the World Bank, Nicky Oppenheimer, Warren Buffett and Arnold Schwarzenegger.In 2003 Rothschild came under scrutiny when Russian oil industrialist Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s shares in YUKOS passed to him under a deal they concluded prior to Khodorkovsky’s arrest.”

Nat Rothschild:
** Check

“Rothschild began his career in 1994 at Lazard Brothers Asset Management in London, before joining Gleacher Partners, the New York-based mergers and acquisitions (M&A) advisory firm founded by Eric Gleacher, former head of M&A at Morgan Stanley and Lehman Brothers. Rothschild is the co-chairman of Atticus Capital LP, an international investment management firm established in 1995, that has offices in New York and London. He is also a director of RIT Capital Partners plc, and a director of The Rothschild Foundation. In 2006, he was appointed chairman of Trigranit, a Hungarian developer of which he is a major shareholder. Rothschild is a member of the Belfer Center’s International Council at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and the International Advisory Council of the Brookings Institution. He is also a member of the International Advisory Board of the Barrick Gold Corporation. He was nominated as a “Young Global Leader” by the World Economic Forum in 2005.”

Evelyn de Rothschild:
** Check

“In 1968, Evelyn de Rothschild was appointed a director of Paris-based de Rothschild Frères while Guy de Rothschild from the French branch of the family became a partner at N M Rothschild & Sons. In 1976 he took over as bank chairman from Victor Rothschild and in 1982 became chairman of Rothschilds Continuation Holdings AG, the co-ordinating company for the merchant banking group. He became co-chairman of Rothschild Bank A.G., Zurich in 1994, serving until 2003 when he oversaw the merger of the family’s French and UK houses. David René de Rothschild of the French branch took over as executive chairman of Rothschild International after the different branches had been merged and Sir Evelyn continued as non-executive chairman of N M Rothschild & Sons. In 2003, he founded with his wife, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a holding company, E.L. Rothschild, to manage their investments in The Economist and various enterprises in India.Throughout his career, Evelyn de Rothschild has been actively involved in a number of other organisations in both the private and public sectors and has held the following business positions:
* Chairman – The Economist (1972-1989)
* Chairman – British Merchant Banking & Securities House Association (1985-1989)
* Deputy Chairman – Milton Keynes Development Corporation (1971-1984)
* Chairman – United Racecourses (1977-1994)
* Director – De Beers Consolidated Mines (1977-1994)
* Director – IBM United Kingdom Holdings Limited (1972-1995)
Evelyn de Rothschild also served as a Director of the newspaper group owned by Lord Beaverbrook. Years later, he served for a time as a Director of Lord Black’s Daily Telegraph newspaper and was a member of the Hollinger International Advisory Board. An owner of thoroughbred racehorses, he is a former chairman of United Racecourses, which owns Epsom Downs and Sandown Park racecourses. In 1989 he was knighted by HM Queen Elizabeth II. He has been a Governor of the London School of Economics and Political Science as well as an active patron of the arts and supporter of a number of charities. He served as Chairman of the Delegacy of St Mary’s Hospital Medical School from 1977 to 1988. He has been a Member of the Council of the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art, a trustee of the Shakespeare Globe Trust, and in 1998 was appointed Chairman of the Princess Royal Trust for Carers. Sir Evelyn was the founding chairman of the 1990 European Association for Banking and Financial History e.V. in Frankfurt, Germany, a position he held until retiring in 2004.”

David Mayer de Rothschild:
** Check

“Neither he nor his brother have shown interest in joining the family-owned N M Rothschild & Sons London banking business and when their father stepped down as chairman in 2003, cousin David René de Rothschild of the French branch of the family took over as head of the worldwide Rothschild Group.” The most active & prominent living Rothschild in the business world today is:

David René James de Rothschild:
** Check
“… born in 1942. He is the son of Guy Edouard Alphonse Paul de Rothschild and Alix Hermine Jeanette Schey von Koromla. He married Princess Olimpia Anna Aldobrandini in 1974. David René James de Rothschild was head of NM Rothschild, London in 2003.”

** Check

“David de Rothschild was educated at Institut d’Études Politiques de Paris in Paris from which he graduated in 1966. He began his business career at Société miniére et métallurgique de Peñarroya, one of the family’s international mining businesses headquartered in Paris. He then began training in de Rothschild Frères bank. French government reform of banking regulations ended the legal distinction between banques d’affaires and deposit banks and in 1967 de Rothschild Frères became Banque Rothschild, a limited-liability company. David de Rothschild’s father was an aggressive businessman who strove to expand the bank and their investments in mining and oil exploration as chairman of Imetal S.A.. However, the family fortunes suffered a severe setback following the election to the French Presidency of the socialist government of François Mitterrand in 1981. The new parliament nationalized a number of large companies and banks including that of the Rothschild family. An angry and discouraged 72-year-old Guy de Rothschild left France for a time and settled in New York City where the family had existing but limited business activities. In an October 18, 2003 interview with George Trefgarne published in the The Spectator, David de Rothschild said that after nationalisation it took until 1986, when the Socialists lost power, for Rothschild family members to get a new banking license. In 1987 a successor company called Rothschild & Cie Banque was created by David de Rothschild who was joined by his half-brother Edouard and cousin Eric de Rothschild. Capitalized at only $1 million and starting with just three employees, they soon built their tiny investment bank into a major competitor in France and continental Europe. In 2003, following the retirement of Sir Evelyn de Rothschild as head of N M Rothschild & Sons of London, the English and French firms merged to become one umbrella entity called “Group Rothschild.” Ownership was shared equally between the French and English branches of the family under the leadership of David de Rothschild. In 2007, the English branch sold their share to the French branch. The French branch now fully own N M Rothschild & Sons. As of 2008, David de Rothschild holds the following corporate positions:
* Chairman of N M Rothschild & Sons
* Chairman of Rothschilds Continuation Holdings
* Vice Chairman of Rothschild Bank AG
* Vice Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Paris Orleans
* Senior Partner of Rothschild & Cie Banque
* Member of the Supervisory Board of Compagnie Financiere Saint-Honore
* Member of the Supervisory Board of Compagnie Financiere Martin Maurel
* Member of the Supervisory Board of De Beers Group
* Member of the Supervisory Board of Groupe Casino
David de Rothschild also owns a share of the Château Lafite-Rothschild vineyard but is not active in the day to day operations.”

And we shall also note:
Benjamin Edmond Maurice de Rothschild

** Check
“… born in 1963. He is the son of Edmond Adolphe Maurice Jules Jacques de Rothschild and Nadine Nelly Jeannette L’Hopitalier. Benjamin Edmond Maurice de Rothschild was head of the Compagnie Financière Edmond de Rothschild. In 2001 he launched e-Rothschild (an online bank).”


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.