No More Eugenics and Genocide You Claim? I Beg To Differ!

March 2, 2016

The corporate controlled opposition environmentalism groups, such as the Sierra Club and all offshoot affiliated groups are supporting the fortune 500 corporations and their false claims and criminal actions in every state and across the nation in this massive takeover of all resources public and private. A deep forensic analysis into the authors of the documents these groups are advocating for, those very idealisms are the intellectual property of these large fortune 500 multinational corporations. This leads us to the IMF, the World Bank, The Club of Rome, UNICEP, UNIDROIT, UNEP. Agenda 2100, for the purpose of Sacrificing the American citizenry on the Altar of the Bankers Lie of Economy for a Pretended Exchange of Sustainable Stability through The UNEP and Agenda 21’s Genocidal, Depopulating, Impoverishment and Enslavement New Green Order programme through economic strife, scarcity and financial ruination. All of these environmentalists are liars.

Thanks goes out to There Is No Debt and Six Honest Men;

Obama signs executive order, bypasses Congress, and legalizes all BLM land grabs
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=40858
We read –
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.
28 U.S. Code § 3002 – Definitions
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002
Reference material providing for clear, obvious and simple full disclosure to the ownership of the US:
OWNERSHIP OF LAW
Ownership of Law
The link to the WIPO database showing the US as copyrighted property has been deactivated. Its archived record on the internet has also been deactivated –
WIPO database constitution of US
http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=5395
Archived record of WIPO database link of US constitution
https://web.archive.org/web/20151224204248/http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=5395
Nevertheless, its copyrighted constitution is made available in pdf form –
The Constitution of the United States of America
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/us/us181en.pdf
Of further interest with regards to the USA that the WIPO Standing Committee on Patents provides, as background to the USA’s legal position, is that its constitution is over-ridden by international treaties, when we read, pages 13 and page 14 respectively –
page 13
U.S. CONST. ART. VI, CL. 2: “This Constitution, and the laws of the
United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all
treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every
state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of
any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
page 14
Treaties are expressly declared to be “the
supreme law of the land.”
Source:
International Privilege Issues: A United States View
WIPO Standing Committee on Patents
5 November 2014
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/scp/en/scp_21/scp_21_ref_lewis.pdf
Definition of Notwithstanding
In spite of
Example for Educational Purposes Only
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby,notwithstanding (in spite of) anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary.
Source:
notwithstanding
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/notwithstanding
The treaties under which the US abides to, as well as all other countries and regional bodies that are a member, are those of the United Nations. And as far as the ownership of the United Nations is concerned, its ownership can be discovered by reading the proofs below;

70 years ago after the Second World War –
Commemorating the UN charter
http://unsdn.org/commemorating-the-un-charter/
Charter of the United Nations
San Francisco, 26 June 1945
http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/cun/cun.html
We read –
“The President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister…representing His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom…”
Source:
Atlantic Charter, jpeg

Atlantic Charter
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/atlantic.asp
~
Definition of And
Used to connect words of the same part of speech, clauses, or sentences, that are to be taken jointly:
‘bread and butter
they can read and write
a hundred and fifty’
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/and
~
Note.-
Both the President of the United States and the Prime Minister are representing His Majesty
We read –
” In the Declaration by United Nations of 1 January 1942, the Allies pledged adherence to this charter’s principles.”
“The Atlantic Charter set goals for the post-war world and inspired many of the international agreements that shaped the world thereafter.”
The policy was issued as a statement; as such there was no formal, legal document entitled “The Atlantic Charter”.
Source:
Atlantic Charter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Charter
Note.-
The United Nations “pledges” adherence to the Atlantic Charter, means that the United Nations“allegiance” is to the Atlantic Charter. It is therefore the Atlantic Charter that is in ownership of the United Nations and it, the Atlantic Charter, is in turn in the ownership of the Office titled His Majesty, which Office of Monarchy will pass to the Heirs of that Office.
How interesting that we read, that even before the end of the Second World War, the Atlantic Charter ‘somehow’ prophetically determined the ‘designs’ of the post-war world.
~
The United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) forms the central coordinating core instrument and forum of the United Nations, representing as ‘plenipotentiary’, the direct will of the Office of Monarch:
We read, second paragraph –
‘The ECOSOC serves as the central forum for discussing international economic and social issues, and for formulating policy recommendations addressed to member states and the United Nations system.’
Source:
United Nations Economic and Social Council
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Economic_and_Social_Council
Under the title heading, ‘ECOSOC at a Glance’, we read –
‘The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) is the United Nations’ central platform for reflection, debate, and innovative thinking on sustainable development.’
Source:
About ECOSOC
http://www.un.org/en/ecosoc/about/
From Encyclopaedia Britannica, we learn –
Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)…responsible for the direction and coordination of the economic, social, humanitarian, and cultural activities carried out by the UN. It is the UN’s largest and most complex subsidiary body…ECOSOC was established by the UN Charter (1945)…The council was designed to be the UN’s main venue for the discussion of international economic and social issues. ECOSOC conducts studies; formulates resolutions, recommendations, and conventions for consideration by the General Assembly; and coordinates the activities of various UN organizations…Most of ECOSOC’s work is performed in functional commissions on topics such as human rights, narcotics, population, social development, statistics, the status of women, and science and technology; the council also oversees regional commissions for Europe, Asia and the Pacific, Western Asia, Latin America, and Africa…At the ECOSOC World Summit in 2005, it was mandated that the council convene annual ministerial reviews, designed to monitor progress on internationally agreed development goals, and a biennial Development Cooperation Forum.
Source:
Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
http://www.britannica.com/topic/Economic-and-Social-Council
From the United Nations Environment Programmes (UNEP) office in New York, we read and learn –
‘The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), established in 1972, is the voice for the environment within the United Nations system…UNEP acts as a catalyst, advocate, educator and facilitator to promote the wise use and sustainable development of the global environment. To accomplish this, UNEP works with a wide range of partners, including United Nations entities, international organizations, national Governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the private sector and civil society.’
Source:
ABOUT UNEP
http://www.unep.org/newyork/AboutUNEP/tabid/52259/Default.aspx
We learn under the subheading, Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) –
‘The United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was established by the UN General Assembly in December 1992 to ensure effective follow-up of United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the Earth Summit.’
Source:
UNEP Office New York
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL ECOSOC
http://www.unep.org/newyork/IntergovernmentalPolicyCoordination/EconomicandSocialCouncil/tabid/52272/Default.aspx
NGO Branch, Department of Economic and Social Affairs
About ECOSOC and its Subsidiary Bodies
http://csonet.org/?menu=123
~
Are we to understand the Atlantic Charter to be law, given to mean that it is the will and wish as personally owned private law, through that of the Office of His Majesty, and not that of a legal document constituting a bilateral offer.
From the preceding, it perhaps could be seen that the Atlantic Charter constitutes, in effect, a unilateral offer that brings into employment as employee’s, those that wish to accept ‘acting out their lives’ through continued employment to it. Then from there, it could be said and seen that the Offeror, having fulfiled an obligation to perform in making available the written instrument through which acceptance can be made to it, would have honoured his bargain. As with all else in line with ‘political charters’.
~
Definition of Unilateral Offer

unilateral offer

Definition of Unilateral Contract
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/unilateral-contract.asp
Definition of Unilateral Contract
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/unilateral_contract
What’s the Difference Between Bilateral and Unilateral Contracts?
https://www.rocketlawyer.com/article/whats-the-difference-between-bilateral-and-unilateral-contracts.rl
~
Under the subheading, ‘Drafting the Declaration’, we read –
“One major change from the Atlantic Charter was the addition of a provision for religious freedom, which Stalin approved after Roosevelt insisted.”
Source:
Declaration by United Nations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_by_United_Nations
Declaration by United Nations

We read –
“The Governments signatory hereto,
Having subscribed to a common program of purposes and principles embodied in the Joint
Declaration of the President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland dated August 14, 1941, known as the
Atlantic Charter.”
Declaration by the United Nations (January 1, 1942)
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~wggray/Teaching/His300/Handouts/1942-1-UN-Declaration.pdf
~
The Rothschilds’ Financing of Stalin
http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/rothschilds-financing-stalin/
Stalin researched the Rothschilds and Venetian Aristocracy

Stalin researched the Rothschilds

Francisco Lopes Suasso
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Lopes_Suasso
~
1 January 1955 – Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations: original manuscript prepared for printing.

26 June 1945
The United Nations Charter open to the signatory page.

Historic Archives – photo
Charter of the United Nations
San Francisco, 26 June 1945
http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/cun/cun.html
Sourced:
International Organizations
Charter of the United Nations, 1945
http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/instruments.html
~
Under the subheading, ‘Charter Provisions’, we read beneath the subtitle, ‘Preamble’, the words –
“We the peoples of the United Nations determined”
Source:
United Nations Charter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Charter
Note.-
A perculiar phrasing given the word, peoples, since the word, ‘people’, on its own is both singular and plural in number in its description of those individuals to be found in the physical world.
Whereas the term, peoples, cannot be of the physical world since the term, people, caters for that territory, and therefore, peoples is a description relating to someone’s personally owned private fictitious noun of their own making, within the territory of their imagination.
Furthermore, for the perculiar people to find themselves within the house of the United Nations, as the phrasing mis-leads us to believe, they would need to agree to accept an offer to be able to enter such a house and only then could they be found within its walls; setting aside the notions of personally owned private fictitious intellectual copywritten jurisdictional territory presented here as, the United Nations.
Charter of the United Nations (1945)
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_United_Nations#Chapter_I_-_Purposes_and_Principles
The United Nations System – Principal Organs

Source:
5.3 The United Nations and the Impact on Trade
http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/challenges-and-opportunities-in-international-business/s09-03-the-united-nations-and-the-imp.html

The impact of human activity on biodiversity means human beings (indirect drivers) must be eliminated with the supporting justification of the climate change lie –
Biodiversity

Where the buck stops – The Club of Rome
http://www.agendatwentyone.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/the-club-of-rome-where-the-buck-stops/

Understanding the present in the light of the future by President Mikhail Gorbachev

Rio+20: understanding the present in the light of the future.

U.N.’s Shocking Millennium Agenda (21)

The U.N.’s Shocking Millennium Agenda (21)

We read –
Quote by Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R.: “The emerging ‘environmentalization’ of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government.”
Quote by Gordon Brown, former British prime minister: “A New World Order is required to deal with the Climate Change crisis.”
Expose Agenda 21

A quote taken from, Expose Agenda 21, facebook page –
“The real goal of the Earth Charter is that it will
in fact become like the Ten Commandments.”
– Maurice Strong
The Earth Charter – Humanity’s Covenant with the Earth
http://www.green-agenda.com/earthcharter.html

WILDLANDS
TOWARDS A WILDER EUROPE DEVELOPING AN ACTION AGENDA FOR WILDERNESS AND LARGE NATURAL HABITAT AREAS
http://www.europarc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/2012_Wild_Europe_European_Commission_Towards_a_wilder_Europe.pdf
FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY
A Little Background History of Pedigree
TOWARDS A WILDER EUROPE DEVELOPING AN ACTION AGENDA FOR WILDERNESS AND LARGE NATURAL HABITAT AREAS
It may do us good, to investigate a little more closely one of the participants, in league with the others, sponsoring the rewilding publication.
The participant in question is the, “Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts (UK)”, whose name is included, among others, at the bottom of the publications pages (acting as its back-cover), to which, together with the other participants, they so lavishly helped to facilitate its sponsorship, in drawing attention to the ambitions of Agenda 21’s Depopulating Programme of Rewilding Europe.
It is not here proposed that an in-depth analysis of this organizations philanthropic pursuits are examined, which unquestionably have done much good, but what is proposed, is to be made aware of the background connections behind these organizations, and their far reaching interests in influencing much of human progress, or as the individual is free to determine for themselves, their far reaching influence in deceivingly stifling human progress.
The case to be presented, is one of providing a sequence of openly available information in the form of website links, that admittedly show that ‘the owners’ behind various philanthropic organizations as ‘their founders’ to them, and not forgetting that that which is ‘founded’ by you is clearly owned by you, surely have strong ties to the contribution of Agenda 21’s ambitions of, ‘harmonising humanities numbers to the earth’s ability of providing sustenance for sustainability to be viable’.
“The Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts or RSWT…was previously known by the names Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves and Royal Society for Nature Conservation.”
History –
“The forerunner of the RSWT, the Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves, was established by Charles Rothschild in 1912. It aimed initially to draw up a list of the country’s best wildlife sites with a view to purchase for protection as nature reserves, and by 1915 it had drawn up a list of 284, known as Rothschild Reserves.”
Source:
Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society_of_Wildlife_Trusts
~
Nathaniel Charles Rothschild (9 May 1877 – 12 October 1923), known as “Charles”, was an English banker and entomologist and a member of the Rothschild family.
Family –
Charles Rothschild worked as a partner in the family bank NM Rothschild and Sons in London.
Nature conservation –
He was concerned about the loss of wildlife habitats, and in 1912 set up the Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves, the forerunner of The Wildlife Trusts partnership. In 1915 the Society produced a schedule of the best wildlife sites in the country, some of which were purchased as nature reserves.
Marriage –
In 1907 Charles Rothschild married Rozsika Edle von Wertheimstein (1870 – 30 June 1940), a Hungarian baroness and descendent of…one of the wealthiest families in Europe and had made their fortune over a century before the Rothschilds.
Source:
Charles Rothschild
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Rothschild
~
The Rothschild Reserves –
In 1912 Charles Rothschild founded the ‘Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves’ (SPNR).
More on the Rothschild Reserves –
“What was new about this approach to preserving ‘wild life’ was that it focussed on the habitatrather than just the individual species within it. It highlighted a growing belief that places needed protection from development and other damage. It showed a desire for an ordered and reasoned approach to acquiring nature reserves, in the face of increasign pressure on the natural world and culminated in a ‘shopping list’ of ideal sites – the Rothschild Reserves.”
“…the SPNR always established who the landowner was. The intention at this time was to purchase the land, turn it into a nature reserve and then hand it over to the National Trust to manage under special conditions.”
“It was believed that it was better to fence off nature and leave it to its own devices, rather than practically manage it…”
“The elite conservation crusaders could be seen to have inhabited a moral high ground where, from a lofty height, they shook their fists at progress in their quest for ‘primeval country’ and their desire to shut it off.”
Source:
The Wildlife Trusts, The Rothschild Reserves
http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/rothschildreserves
~
Climate Change & Wildlife –
“Climate change is a significant threat to the UK’s wildlife. The Wildlife Trusts believe thatnature should be central to both climate change adaptation (e.g. through the use of natural processes to reduce flood risk) and mitigation (e.g. through the protection and restoration of peat and peatlands to store and sequester carbon).”
“However there is now widespread agreement among scientists that we are living in an era of accelerated climate change, much of which can be attributed to increased human activity (for example through increased carbon emmissions from air pollution).”
Note.-
The words in the phrase, ‘widespread agreement among scientists’, are words that can only be attributed to ‘conflict-of-interest’ based political consesus science, and NOT ‘factual science’.
“Climate change means that there are complex demands being placed on land for food, wildlife, recreation and development. Wildlife has adapted to climate change in the past but our modern landscapes – full of buildings, transport links and intensively managed farmland and fragmented natural habitats – present a new challenge to species. It is vital that we manage and use land sustainably, so it allows plants and animals to move and adapt to new conditions for survival as the climate changes. The Wildlife Trusts’ vision for A Living Landscape is working to bring about landscape scale restoration of the natural environment and adaptation to climate change, realising and using the multiple benefits provided by nature.”
“Protecting and restoring our natural environment and ecosystems is important in its own right…Flood prevention, crop pollination, carbon absorption, clean and healthy water sources – these benefits of our natural environment must all be considered and maximised as we prepare for the effects of climate change. Critically, we need to restore healthy, Living Landscapes that help to alleviate floods, control pollution and help us cope with extremes of temperature.”
“Many of The Wildlife Trusts’ Living Landscape schemes have been designed with climate change adaptation at the forefront. At the heart of Living Landscape approach is habitat restoration and connectivity.”
Source:
Climate Change & Wildlife
http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/climate-change
The Wildlife Trusts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wildlife_Trusts
~
Giammaria Ortes:
The Decadent Venetian Kook Who Originated The Myth of “Carrying Capacity”
http://american_almanac.tripod.com/ortes.htm
Recruiting the military for Agenda 21’s depopulation genocidal murder
Sustainbilities justification for depopulation, is that there are too many people to harmonise with the earth’s environment, and therefore depopulation is an absolute necessity. Of course, with the fraudulent excuse of false ‘climate change’ science as the driving force behind the Self-Ennobling Ones and their self-validating clergy’s ambitions for mass genocidal murder, it comes as no surprise that the Self-Ennobling Ones law enforcement and in particular their military are now positioning and prioritising their role towards sustainablities climate change depopulation ‘development’ agenda, to have the military engage in excused mass murder, on behalf of the Self-Ennobling Ones, covertly presented under a ‘new energy security strategy’ –
PENTAGON PREPARES FOR CENTURY OF CLIMATE EMERGENCIES AND OIL WARS
http://www.blacklistednews.com/Pentagon_prepares_for_century_of_climate_emergencies_and_oil_wars/45538/0/38/38/Y/M.html
~
GB 2293 SPNC
Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts
This catalogue was digitised by The National Archives as part of the National
Register of Archives digitisation project
The National Archive
National Registar of Archives – NRA 24457
Centre for Urban and Regional Studies University of Birmingham and Institute of Agricultural History
University of Reading
A list of the historical records of the Society for the Promotion of Nature Conservation
Compiled by Philippa Bassett as part of a research project funded by the Social Science Research Council
August 1980
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/download/GB2293%20SPNC
~
World Wide Fund for Nature, WWF (formerly named the, World Wildlife Fund, WWF)
World Wildlife Fund / World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)
Founders –
Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld
Julian Huxley
Max Nicholson
Peter Scott
Guy Mountfort
Godfrey A. Rockefeller
“The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) is an international non-governmental organizationfounded on April 29, 1961, and is working on issues regarding the conservation, research and restoration of the environment. It was formerly named the World Wildlife Fund… It is theworld’s largest conservation organization with over 5 million supporters worldwide, working in more than 100 countries, supporting around 1,300[5] conservation and environmental projects. WWF is a foundation,[6] in 2010 deriving 57% of funding from individuals and bequests, 17% from government sources (such as the World Bank, DFID, USAID) and 11% from corporations.”
“The group’s mission is “to stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature.”[7] Currently, much of its work focuses on the conservation of three biomes that contain most of the world’s biodiversity: oceans and coasts, forests, and freshwater ecosystems. Among other issues, it is also concerned withendangered species, pollution and climate change.”

Note.-
It is recommended that the entire page is read to acquire a brief working understanding and background to the WWF
Source:
World Wide Fund for Nature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Fund_for_Nature
~
There is nothing cuddly about the WWF
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100030769/there-is-nothing-cuddly-about-the-wwf/
____
Use of the Glass Prism of Doublespeak to De-mystify Meaning
It becomes clear what the Self-Ennobling Ones agenda really is, for which they have worked diligently towards over a great deal of time, and how in the use of understanding “doublespeak”, they convey that agenda to each other worldwide, as well as to their mis-guided minions.
With a serious appreciation of “doublespeak”, we can come to see it in use for ourselves with negative events around the world demonstrably at odds with official explanations for them, given as one of a ‘rosy outlook’ for the future, when quite obviously the real situation on the ground points to ‘a planned grim outlook’ for the future.
The information to follow then must be interpreted through the light prism of “doublespeak”, through which wording is shone to separate its material for the purpose of seeing true meaning conveyed. That is to say, the opposite of what is presented.
This will no doubt mean, perhaps that given all the accompanying evidence, what is seen before us is not ‘crisis management’ to avert disaster and to ensure continuity for a ‘rosy outlook’ into the future, but through the prisim of doublespeak, what is seen before us are the Self-Ennobling Ones as gods at play, with their preplanned “games” devised for ‘managed controlled rehearsals’ to ensure discontinuity and great suffering through their devices and mechanisms of control.
REFERENCE MATERIAL:
Defininition of Doublespeak
– language that can be understood in more than one way and that is used to trick or deceive people
– language used to deceive usually through concealment or misrepresentation of truth
Sourced:
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doublespeak
Definition of Doublespeak
Doublespeak is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words…It may also refer to intentional ambiguity in language or to actual inversions of meaning (for example, naming a state of war “peace”).
Sourced:
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak
From the description given of “doublespeak”, the agenda behind the Self-Ennobling Ones and their self-validating clergy becomes clear –
‘Sustainablility and its development’, is a cruel deception in which a vast majority of people in the world, as victims of its ‘doublespeak hidden agenda’, work towards their own elimination, with the enslavement of the surviving few, housed in concentration camp ‘smart growth’ community dwellings, serving the rest of their miserable lives as serfs to the Self-Ennobling Ones and their self-validating clergy.
The prevailing mental condition then is controlled insanity –
Doublespeak is saying one thing and meaning another, usually its opposite.
http://www.orwelltoday.com/dblspkthennow.shtml
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
http://www.orwelltoday.com/doublethink.shtml
Reader – doublethink
http://www.orwelltoday.com/readerdoublethink.shtml
Doublespeak publications –
United Nations Publications
PDF Publications
https://unp.un.org/Browse80b2.html?pdf=1
Control of Raw Materials –
The Hunger Games (2012)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1392170/
Note.-
What is of particular interest in the movie, The Hungar Games, is the backdrop through which the movie and the characters are framed. This backdrop of infrastructure is a future sustaiable development environment.
FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY
The Real Hungar Games (Sustainable Development post 2015) –
Ensuring Discontinuity through Management Game Play –
Food Chain Reaction: A Global Food Security Game
1250 24th Street, NW | Washington, DC 20037
info@foodchainreaction.org | © 2015 World Wildlife Fund, Inc.
http://foodchainreaction.org/
Note.-
We read –
About the Organizers
Food Chain Reaction is being produced by World Wildlife Fund and the Center for American Progress, with game design from CNA. Funding and technical support for Food Chain Reaction has been provided by Cargill with major support from Mars, Inc. Additional funding has been provided by Sealed Air Corporation.
Source:
Food Chain Reaction – A Global Food Security Game
About
http://foodchainreaction.org/index.php/about/
~
Organisational Structural Chart for the Control of Raw Material

Source:
The Windsors’ Global Food Cartel: Instrument for Starvation
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1995/2249_windsor_food.html
Primary Sourcing:
Who Is Responsible for the World Food Shortage
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1995/2249_food_intro.html
Alternative Sourcing:
Who Is Responsible for the World Food Shortage
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_depopu38.htm
Hinting towards an arm of sustainable developments preplanned depopulation agenda –
How would your nearest city be affected by a bomb the size of that dropped on Hiroshima?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/11786876/How-would-your-nearest-city-be-affected-by-a-bomb-the-size-of-Hiroshima.html?frame=3399391
~
Note.-
To understand the necessity for war, using manufactured antagonism between countries as a veil to set about eliminating the true enemy (people), particularly timed for the need to distract from discovering the bankers lie of economy, and providing for the bonus of killing two birds with one stone, when it comes to meeting the requirements of obedience and Agenda 21’s depopulation goals.
SPECULATIVE DATES GIVEN FOR WORLD WAR III
https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/speculative-dates-given-for-world-war-iii/
WHEN DID WORLD WAR III BEGIN ?
The prelude to war can be traced as far back as 2008, when we look at the information under the subtitle heading,
‘PRECAUTIONS TO TRAGEDY TAKE LITTLE TIME IN READING SIMPLY PRESENTED SOLUTION’,
to be found part way down the document –
VACCINES
https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2015/02/20/vaccines/
_______
Archive for Club of Rome
http://thearrowsoftruth.com/tag/club-of-rome/
~
The 1001: A Nature Trust
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1001:_A_Nature_Trust
The 1001 Club
http://www.truedemocracy.net/hj32/05.html
The 1001 Club
Bankers, Intelligence Agents, and Raw Materials Executives Striving for a Sustainable Future
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_1001club01.htm
Sourced:
* pre-December 2014 archived version of the site – Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert Politics
https://wikispooks.com/ISGP/index.html
Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert Politics
http://isgp.nl/
ISGP
https://wikispooks.com/w/index.php?title=ISGP&redirect=no
1001 Club – Incomplete Membership List
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_1001club02.htm
The ‘1001 Club’ – a nature trust
http://canadianpatriot.org/archives/1133
~
Transnational Classes and International Relations
By Kees Van der Pijl
https://books.google.pl/books?id=dk4JBjkYCIIC&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124&dq=Prince+Bernhard+%2B+club+of+rome&source=bl&ots=B1w0Os4QeH&sig=ltIb9MTkTUJipCMsFLv0AQ_4EvA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCGoVChMI4ZPavcfvxgIVBf1yCh2-sgMT#v=onepage&q=Prince%20Bernhard%20%2B%20club%20of%20rome&f=false
~
For Educational Purposes Only –
Dr. Claude Martin, Switzerland – Board Member, International Institute for Sustainable Development, Former Director General of WWF
http://www.clubofrome.org/?p=802
~
We read –
The department was separated from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 1997
* Department for International Development (DFID)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_for_International_Development
~
We read –
The Duke of Edinburgh is the patron of many organisations, including WWF and the Duke of Edinburgh Award. The Duke was the first President of WWF-UK from its foundation in 1961 to 1982, and President of WWF-International from 1981 to 1996. He is now President Emeritus for WWF.
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/borneo_forests/about_borneo_forests/borneo_prince_phillip.cfm
~
We read –
Their Patron is HRH The Prince of Wales.
The Wildlife Trusts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wildlife_Trusts
~
Our mission
To protect and sustainably manage natural ecosystems of the world; to conserve their biodiversity, with emphasis on threatened habitats and endangered species
How We Work –
http://www.worldlandtrust.org/about/how-we-work
~
World Conservation and Wildlife Trust
http://www.wcwtinternational.org/
~
United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_International_Development
International Development United States Agency For
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue Nw
Washington, DC 20004
Web: http://www.usaid.gov
A privately held company in Washington, DC
http://www.manta.com/c/mb4n0yg/international-development-united-states-agency-for
International Development United States Agency For
Usaid M/Oaa/Cas
1300 Penn Avenue Nw Room 824-C
Washington, DC 20004 – View Map
Phone: (212) 713-4320
Web: http://www.usaid.gov
Own This Business?
A privately held company in Washington, DC
http://www.manta.com/c/mr4ry0l/international-development-united-states-agency-for
USAID Acronym List
http://www.usaidalumni.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/USAID-Acronym-List-020413.pdf
~
“Bernhard helped found the World Wildlife Fund (later renamed World Wide Fund for Nature), becoming its first President in 1961, and in 1970 establishing the WWF’s financial endowment “The 1001: A Nature Trust”. In 1954, he was a co-founder of the international Bilderberg Group, which has met annually since then to discuss corporate globalization…”
The Prince eventually went to work for the German chemical giant IG Farben, then the world’s fourth-largest company (which survives today as BASF, AGFA, and Bayer). After training, Bernhard became secretary to the board of directors at the Paris office in 1935.
“Prince Bernhard was a member of the “Reiter-SS”, a mounted unit of the SS and joined the Nazi party.[7] He later also joined the National Socialist Motor Corps.”
“With his global contacts, Bernhard in May 1954, was a key figure in organising a meeting at the Bilderberg Hotel in the Netherlands for the business elite and intellectuals of the Western World to discuss the economic problems in the face of what they characterized as the growing threat from Communism. This first meeting was successful, and it became an annual gathering known as the Bilderberg Group. The idea for the European Union, first proposed by Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950, was encouraged at Bilderberg.”
Note.-
It is recommended that the entire page is read
Source:
Prince Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Bernhard_of_Lippe-Biesterfeld
~
Anton Rupert
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Rupert
~
Sir Julian Huxley is brother to Aldous Huxley
Souce:
Huxley, Arnold Family Tree
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Huxley#/media/File:Huxley-Arnold_family_tree.svg
“Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS[1] (22 June 1887 – 14 February 1975) was a British evolutionary biologist, eugenicist, and internationalist.”
“He was secretary of the Zoological Society of London (1935–1942), the first Director of UNESCO, a founding member of the World Wildlife Fund and the first President of the British Humanist Association.”
“In 1959 he received a Special Award of the Lasker Foundation in the category Planned Parenthood – World Population. Huxley was a prominent member of the British Eugenics Society and its president from 1959–1962.”
Later career –
“Huxley, a lifelong internationalist with a concern for education, got involved in the creation of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and became the organization’s first director-general in 1946.”
“In a fortnight he dashed off a 60-page booklet on the purpose and philosophy of UNESCO, eventually printed and issued as an official document. There were, however, many conservative opponents of his scientific humanism. His idea of restraining population growth with birth control …”
“Huxley’s internationalist and conservation interests also led him, with Victor Stolan, Sir Peter Scott, Max Nicholson and Guy Mountfort, to set up the WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature under its former name of the World Wildlife Fund).”
Note.-
Recommended that the entire page is read
Source:
Julian Huxley
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Huxley
~
UNESCO Its Purpose and Its Philosophy – The Task of Unifying the World Mind
https://orwelliania.wordpress.com/2013/02/17/unesco-its-purpose-and-its-philosophy-the-task-of-unifying-the-world-mind/
World Evolutionary Humanism, Eugenics and UNESCO Pt 1

World Evolutionary Humanism, Eugenics and UNESCO Pt 2

Global Depopulation and the Eugenics Agenda (Full)

~
UNESCO –
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (French: Organisation des Nations unies pour l’éducation, la science et la culture; UNESCO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN). Its purpose is to contribute to peace and security by promoting international collaboration through education, science, and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, the rule of law, and human rights along with fundamental freedom proclaimed in the United Nations Charter.[1] It is the heir of the League of Nations’International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation.
Source:
UNESCO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNESCO
~
UNESCO – It’s Evil Purpose and Philosophy

~
“He was then married to Margaret “Margo” Kuhn Rockefeller for fifty three years.”
Godfrey A. Rockefeller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey_A._Rockefeller
~
Margaret Kuhn Rockefeller daughter of Richard Parker Kuhn
Source:
Caroline Parker Kuhn
b. 26 January 1925, d. 30 April 2011
http://www.woodvorwerk.com/vorwerk/g0/p611.htm
Richard P. Kuhn 1916
1916 Class Crest
Cullum No. 5528 • Jun 28, 1963 • Died in Bedford Hills, New York
Interred in St. Matthews Churchyard, Bedford Hills, NY
https://apps.westpointaog.org/Memorials/Article/5528/
Kuhn, Loeb & Co.
http://www.nndb.com/company/062/000124687/
In 1914 a few families (blood or business related) owning controlling stock in existing banks (such as in New York City) caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks. Examination of the charts and text in the House Banking Committee Staff Report of August, 1976 and the current stockholders list of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks show this same family control.
http://barefootsworld.net/docs/fedchart.txt
Source:
Who Is Running America ?
http://barefootsworld.net/usfraud.html
~
For Educational Purposes Only –
We note UNESCO’s founding influence in the settlement of the Self-Ennobling Ones intellectual copyright institutional agrrangements in securing inheritance rights, between themselves as gods, towards their successor-assigns as beneficiaries, when we read –
1. Introduction, page 533
“This essay returns to such an “old” conflict in the development of international copyright dating back to the signing of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works on 9 September 1886. Translation, a constant “ pierre d’achoppement” in the evolutionary history of the Berne Convention, caused problems from the outset. These returned with full force at the fourth conference for the revision of the Berne Convention in Stockholm on 11-14 June 1967. Described by one participant as “the worst experience in the history of international copyright conventions”, Stockholm marked the culmination of several years’ discussion on the viability of the international copyright regime to accommodate the needs of developing nations.”
2. Brussels, June 1948, page 534
“The Bureaux Internationaux Réunis pour la Protection de la Propriété Intellectuelle (BIRPI), located in Berne, was the administrative seat from the inception of the treaty, and oversaw revision conferences in Berlin (1908), Rome(1928) and then Brussels (1948).”
subtitle, 2. Brussels, June 1948, page 535
“The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO),played an important role in trying to redress a situation in which, in copyright terms, the world emerged from the war “virtually split into two entirely separate and independent parts”. Launched in 1945 as successor to the International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation (ICIC), UNESCO anchored its copyright policy in the 1948 Declaration on Human Rights.”
TIND Comment.-
UNESCO’s strategic deceptive foil of cover as camouflage, in the use of its development of “collectivist” terms for a “Declaration on Human Rights”, won them the approval of their competing proposals for the Self-Ennobling Ones to accept, as the best means of providing for an excuse to convince the victims of designed eugenicist wars, to relegate their ‘freedoms of independence’ to closer cooperation, or corporation, by compelling acquiescence of the general populace to such terms, out of “fear” of a repeat performance of world war, in it being said, that closer cooperation would quell the brutal urges of man.
They, the general populace at large, having no inkling whatsoever, that their compulsion to accept these copywritten terms had been by design, would also have no inkling, that UNESCO’s proposals had the further advantage of completely blinding them into not coming to an understanding that what was copywritten by them in turn, through the Self-Ennobling One’s instruments of deception, (without qualification under registration of ‘noncommital-to-contract’ to copywritten-countries, but merely to record), would effectively provide the means for the Self-Ennobling Ones agencies to ‘collectively’ interfere in the ownership of their intellectual property.
Interfere as superior authorities to a now admitted subordinate position of a registrant, and that through copyright registration ‘without qualificaiton’, it was an admission that registrants were mentally incapable of maintaining their own affairs, in the same way a child lacked the mental capacity to provide for themselves, by demonstrably not understanding the requirements of speaking-up in their own self-interests, as an adult would understand to do, given their circumstances in the world as being functionally independent, and with the recognition that that independence brings, of having the cognition to voice that independence in line with their self-interests and circumstances.
Failure to speak-up, would no doubt reflect on their mental capacities as being immature and in need of assistance by rightly remaining in the charge of an adult parental figure providing for stewardship, to guide and decide what would be in their best interests. Such arrangements, of course, could find their victims intellectual rights the subject of ‘profitable confiscation’ by any number of ‘seemingly’ legitimate means.
The reader to the preceding may remain unperturbed, since as it ought to be well known, any formal relationships entered into, calls for honesty in the interests of fairness for obvious, fair and full disclosure to be provided – for the very reason that genuine ‘fairness’ can only be the basis of authenticity and therefore legitamcy – otherwise, whatsoever arrangements were entered into without full disclosure made known as to the true nature of the operations of the parties to a relationship, would justly render those arrangements ‘null and void’. And that being the case, without having even to speak of ‘the requirements of justice’.
Continuing, page 535
“Prior to the Brussels conference, UNESCO had already noted how copyright was a “barrier” to the “free flow of culture among all the peoples of the world”. In the next few years, UNESCO instigated a number of copyright initiatives culminating in 1952 with The Universal Copyright Convention(UCC).
In sum, the UCC offered an international multilateral convention with lower levels of protection than Berne, thus providing a vehicle for the US to come into the fold of multilateral international copyright agreements. Several specificities in national legislation kept the US outside Berne until 1989; these were primarily the compulsory registration of copyright and the controversial manufacturing requirement, which afforded English-language books copyright protection in the US only if manufacturedon American soil. As a compromise between the formal registration required by US law and the no formalities-Berne framework, the UCC introduced the use of a ©symbol, making it possible for the US and other countries to sign the UCC without having to change their national legislation.”
Source:
Volume 7, Issue 3, December 2010
COLONIAL COPYRIGHT, POSTCOLONIAL PUBLICS :THE BERNE CONVENTIONAND THE 1967 STOCKHOLM DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE REVISITED
Eva Hemmungs Wirtén
http://www.academia.edu/432552/_Colonial_Copyright_Postcolonial_Publics_the_Berne_Convention_and_the_1967_Stockholm_Diplomatic_Conference_Revisited_
United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_International_Bureaux_for_the_Protection_of_Intellectual_Property
World Intellectual Property Organisation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Intellectual_Property_Organization
Multilateral agreements and a TRIPS-plus world:
The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO)
http://www.geneva.quno.info/pdf/WIPO(A4)final0304.pdf
~
We read –
“It is the heir of the League of Nations’ International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation.”
Source:
UNESCO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNESCO
Of course, the League of Nations was the first fictitious global corporate institution, ready in waiting, to ‘tranisition’ the people of the world into ‘the idea of global governance’ after the scare tactics of fear in World War One (WWI), soon to be replaced with its permanent successor, after the follow up of WWII to ‘secure’ the establishment of the strategy of fear in bringing about an immovable seat for the readiness of permanent global governance in the form of the United Nations –
League of Nations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations`
~
In developments further unifying and solidifying the Self-Ennobling Ones fictitious interests in stealthly centralizing the means with which to confiscate the physical realm, we read, they have superseded and made obsolete the Universal Copyright Convention for that of the World Trade Organisation’s ‘Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS)’ –
“Since almost all countries are either members or aspiring members of the World Trade Organization (WTO), and are thus conforming to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS), the UCC has lost significance.”
Source:
Universal Copyright Convention
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Copyright_Convention
Again, we note the understandings reached concerning issues of creative intellectual property rights, when we learn of those acting on behalf of the authors to creative property, organizing their interests through their forums to settle on agreement, when we read, 1. Introduction, page 1, of, ‘Selling Books: The League of Nations and the Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights in the 1930s’ –
After a series of bilateral agreements the main European book trading countries enacted in cooperation with culturally aware publishers and authors a multilateral agreement, the Berne Convention, in 1886. Although the American states passed the first Inter-American copyright agreement at the same time, the Convention of Montevideo in 1889, it was the Berne Convention, which proofed to be a reliable political instrument in the course of the twentieth century pointing the way ahead when intellectual property rights were institutionalized on a global scale first with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in 1967 followed by the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1994.
Source:
Selling Books: The League of Nations and the Globalization of Intellectual Property
Rights in the 1930s
Isabella Löhr, University of Leipzig
http://www.ebha.org/ebha2007/pdf/Loehr.pdf
~
But wait, returning to the excellent writings from COLONIAL COPYRIGHT, POSTCOLONIAL PUBLICS, those who don’t understand the dangers fictions can pose, are to be further deluded into thinking that they matter, with this –
7. Epilogue: Geneva, October 2007, page 549
“In October 2007, the WIPO Development Agenda was established by the WIPO General Assembly. Scholars have hailed it as a possible new departure for the international intellectual property regime, which has been completely dominated since 1994 by the trade-based rationales of WTO and the infamous Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). TRIPS has eclipsed and helped render the UCC “wholly peripheral to the current international copyright framework” and is targeted for critique by developing nations, echoing concerns already articulated already in 1967. The Stockholm Protocol, a satellite “disconnected from its orbit”, is another instrument relegated to the cemetery where intellectual property texts go to die. Yet, each of these texts is part of the historical foundation from which the Development Agenda draws inspiration.
Although it remains to be seen what clout the Development Agenda will have to redress past wrongs and more recent sins in the power relations between developed and developing nations, it proposes substantial changes in both its general direction and WIPO governance. In 1884, 1885, and 1886 only a handful of nations were present to formulate the original Berne Convention, and they represented a diplomatic elite. Fifty-seven states and more than 400 inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations were present in Stockholm. At present, WIPO counts 184 member nations and over 250 NGOs among those who participate in Geneva deliberations. NGOs now out weigh states in total number, greatly accelerating the presence of civil society in these global arenas, suggesting, to Ruth Okediji, that states are not as important in setting the agenda as they used to be.”
Source:
Volume 7, Issue 3, December 2010
COLONIAL COPYRIGHT, POSTCOLONIAL PUBLICS :THE BERNE CONVENTIONAND THE 1967 STOCKHOLM DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE REVISITED
Eva Hemmungs Wirtén
http://www.academia.edu/432552/_Colonial_Copyright_Postcolonial_Publics_the_Berne_Convention_and_the_1967_Stockholm_Diplomatic_Conference_Revisited_

World Network of Biosphere Reserves in Europe and North America
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Network_of_Biosphere_Reserves_in_Europe_and_North_America
Further history bringing sustainable development’s Agenda 21 into being –
* UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) programme in the mountains of Central and Eastern Europe:
past experiences and future possibilites
Martin F. Price
Environmental Change Unit,
University of Oxford,
United Kingdom
http://www.npsumava.cz/gallery/8/2426-sg1_price.pdf
About the Man and the Biosphere Programme (MAB)
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/man-and-biosphere-programme/about-mab/
Education for Sustainable Development (ESD)
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-agenda/education-for-sustainable-development/

Doublespeak
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak
Acquiring acceptance through double-speak to micro-manage every single aspect of the lives of the people of the world on the bases of climate-change fraud for total full-spectrum targeted depopulation and enslavement –
The New Climate Economy Report 2016
http://2014.newclimateeconomy.report/
Note.-
Scroll down to bottom to view climate economy’s advocates. Sample descriptions of a couple of these advocates and their affairs surrounding sustainable developments climate economy and depopulation is given:
Global Green Growth Institute
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Green_Growth_Institute
UN Partners with Global Green Growth Institute
http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/un-partners-with-global-green-growth-institute-on-climate-action/
World Resources Institute
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Resources_Institute
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._and_Catherine_T._MacArthur_Foundation
We note with particular interest the remarks made under the title heading, ‘Support to eugenics on past’ –
The article forgets the support of this foundation to eugenics on past and to ecology and abortion today.Agre22 (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)agre22
Talk:John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AJohn_D._and_Catherine_T._MacArthur_Foundation
And of course, we can see under the subtitled heading, ‘The Bellagio Center’, that the foundations MacArthur Fellows have ties with the Rockefeller Foundation –
Rockefeller Foundation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Foundation
The US Science Czar who allegedly holds extreme views on genocidal depopulation has strong ties with the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation –
The Triumph of Environmental Alarmism: Science ‘Czar’ John Holdren and the Woods Hole Research Center

The Triumph of Environmental Alarmism: Science ‘Czar’ John Holdren and the Woods Hole Research Center

Webster Tarpley & Elite’s Plan for Global Extermination (FULL VIDEO)

Obama’s Science Czar John P. Holdren Confronted on Population Control

Population Council
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_Council
In the 3rd paragraph we find that among its partners striving for depopulation and permanent enslavement with the shackles of sustainable developments climate economy, the Self-Ennobling Ones United Nations also counts on the assistance it recieves from the Population Council –
Population and Women Programme
http://www.un.org/partnerships/YPAPopulationAndWomen.htm
The fourth bullet point in, BY THE NUMBERS, sees the Population Council willingly involved in demographics issues for what ‘appears’ to be a good cause –
WOMEN & POPULATION
http://www.unfoundation.org/who-we-are/impact/by-the-numbers/women-population.html?referrer=https://www.google.pl/
Case 24
Curbing Global Population Growth: Rockefeller’s Population Council
Rockefeller Foundation, 1952
Steven Schindler
http://www.cspcs.sanford.duke.edu/sites/default/files/descriptive/rockefellers_population_council.pdf
Commission on Population and Development
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/commission/index.shtml
Commission on Population and Development
Forty-eighth session
http://www.papersmart.unmeetings.org/ecosoc/cpd/48th-session/agenda/
Strengthening the demographic evidence base for the post-2015 development agenda
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/commission/sessions/2016/index.shtml
Leading World Bank Demographer: Vaccination Campaigns Part Of Population Reduction Policy
http://www.globalresearch.ca/leading-world-bank-demographer-vaccination-campaigns-part-of-population-reduction-policy/5307235
Population control on the Swiss agenda
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/no-room-at-the-inn_population-control-on-the-swiss-agenda/34609710
Who runs the show? Article documents how U.S. (globalist) foundations don’t just fund Canadian environmentalist groups – they help fund the Canadian government!

Who runs the show? Article documents how U.S. (globalist) foundations don't just fund Canadian environmentalist groups – they help fund the Canadian government!

Alex Jones and his guest brilliantly expose succintly the plans of the Self-Ennobling Ones and their High Priest self-validating clergy of Amon Ra’s depopulating and enslaving programme without having to wade through volumes of text –
The Roots of Technocracy with Expert Patrick M. Wood

Source:
The World Depopulation Agenda
http://www.depopulation.newworldorderuniversity.com/Wordpress/
Note.-
What Alex Jones’ and Patrick Wood’s discussion lacks is ‘genuine true solution’ to the mind-paralysing information they provide that gives, simply and easily, a means to understand how to counter the elites provocations and attacks to no longer fall into the traps of their schemes that have people running around in circles and relying on others to save them:
Genuine Simple Solution Begins With Simply Presented Factual Understanding
What is that key-knowledge that amiable providers of news never ever seem to provide with a few exceptions. Take a look for yourselves –
HOW TO STOP PLAYING THE ELITIST’S MATRIX THROUGH A SIMPLE UNDERSTANDING OF THE MECHANICS OF THE MATRIX
Firstly, know thyself –
Rule Thyself Lest Ye Be Ruled
https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/rule-thyself-lest-ye-be-ruled/
Secondly, understand where it is that the matrix happens –
Read the simply presented information titled, ‘OF FICTIONS (The world of the imagination)’, approximately 1/2 way down the link given as –
OWNERSHIP OF LAW
https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2015/04/25/ownership-of-law/
Thirdly, understand how you’re bought and your livelihood confiscated in being used to work towards your own eugenicist self-destruction –
MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY vs USURY PLAY LIST
https://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=4F0FC0AC39B3086A

Primer:
https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2014/10/28/wake-up-youre-being-taken-for-a-fool-deconstructing-terms/
Fourthly, stand back and take a look at how it all comes together –
https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/the-business-of-knowing-your-place/
And finally, understand how the ‘renaming’ of eugenics has come into operation today –
Quote:
This 1926 Eugenics Exhibit Sums Up What the Elite Think About You and Your Family
http://truthstreammedia.com/2015/09/28/this-1926-eugenics-exhibits-sums-up-what-the-elite-think-about-you-and-your-family/
“Again, eugenics didn’t end when it fell out of favor during World War II; it was simply forced to go underground. It got renamed and buried in what they hope would sound like more benign scientific areas, like genetics, human ecology, and bioethics. The Rockefeller Foundation and other elite family foundations quietly continued their quest for population control of the general “riff raff” through different means.”
https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2015/06/16/the-final-curtain-learning-to-see-and-know-of-the-unimaginable-or/

THE VATICAN CONNECTION TO ENGLAND A CONTINUATION OF ROMAN CONQUEST

February 28, 2016

By James Montgomery

Forward

This is additional information to the 1213 Charter, along with other important information. I stated in “The United States Is Still A British Colony”, that the king gave his holdings to the Pope. I also stated that the 1215 Charter was made null and void by the Pope. I have new information that may surprise you on this subject. You will see the letters of correspondence between the Pope and King John, concerning these two charters. You will also read information connecting our flag to Britain’s, through the colors, and the direct connection these colors have to the Pope. You will see new information connecting American lawyers to the British Bar, and tacit connection to the Pope.

American and World history have been rewritten, by the exclusion of historical events, for the protection of special interests named in this paper. In this paper I’ve uncovered some of these lies and truths not told. In some cases a lie can also be withheld truth. I have dealt with both modes of deception in my book. The two charters mentioned above have much withheld truth. The quoted portions of the personal correspondence between the Pope and the king deal with claims I have made regarding these two charters.

It’s not my purpose to tell you what, or how to think, but remove the barrier keeping you from thinking outside of the box in which you live, your mind. A box filled and shaped with information provided by those that wish you to think a certain way.

Before you read these letters and the other important information I will deal with in this paper, there is some hidden knowledge you need to understand, it deals with the human mind. What I’m going to tell you will help you understand not only this paper, but any information you read, or hear. This information is short and is contained in this brief forward.

In this paper I’m going to challenge the very foundations for which you base your beliefs, concerning the Constitution and your freedom, and your religion no matter what it is. I call these subjects, “the building blocks of human understanding”; every human is programmed with these building blocks, to a greater or lessor extent. A great deception is taking place, and the executors of the deception are three organizations most trusted by the public; government, media and religion. Only after you come to the realization that you have been deceived, will you be able to think outside of the box which has been provided through education and other mediums, for you. Through the government, media and religion you have been brainwashed with predetermined information, the building blocks of the human mind, your programming.

My purpose for sharing this information is “truth”. Keep in mind I was taught the same information as you. Thoroughly indoctrinated by the public schools, television, organized religion and any other medium of indoctrination that formed my beliefs, including the United States Marine Corps. I would say I have had more to overcome than most people, as to the brainwashing I received. Only through making God Almighty’s Word my foundation, not Man’s indoctrination, was I able to see beyond the box, the reality created for me.

I wish I could MAKE everyone understand how the human mind works, a subject so simple, it is difficult to understand and explain.

As I said above this deals with brainwashing, through indoctrination and programming. I know the subversive term brainwashing automatically triggers disbelief and suspicion; I ask you to bear with me. Whatever your programming has been, it is the reason, the cause, for the way you view and disseminate information. This is the reason there are so many different religions, types of governments and social experiments. The people under these different systems, will go to their grave thinking they are right, simply because of their programming.

Have you never wondered how a Muslim could strap a bomb to his body and kill himself and many others? It is due to his programming, that began at birth. The Muslims have been taught they have 70 virgins waiting for them after they blow themselves up, among other things, and that they are doing the will of God, and will be rewarded for their sacrifice. Only religion promising a reward greater than the suffering here on earth, makes it possible for a human to be programmed in such a way, willing to kill him or herself, along with many innocent people. I am sure there are those in the Muslim religion, amazed how we could believe the Christian religion and do the things we do.

As an example, the Pope promised the crusaders that if they would fight against the Muslims, that he, the Pope, would pray their souls out of hell and that they would go to heaven. Do you see any difference between this and the belief of the suicide bombers? Christian’s were foolish and ignorant enough to believe the Pope. How was it possible? Through the twisting of God’s Word by a man claiming to be the equal of Jesus Christ, the Vicar of Christ. Deception can only take place where there is a lack of knowledge. To prove brainwashing is not restricted to foreign governments and other religions, as an example I’ll use the USMC (U.S. government). In just thirteen weeks, the time spent in USMC boot camp, an average man that is self centered, concerned only with his own life is transformed into a man that is willing to charge a machine gun nest without hesitation, kill without discretion, or give up his life retrieving a fallen Marine. Brainwashing is necessary in a war setting, but should not be used on the public. To prove brainwashing is used, I heard with my own ears in a Congressional hearing several years ago, a Marine Corps General being questioned, and he offered up this information, that the USMC uses brainwashing to get Marines to charge into a deadly situation when told to do so, to follow orders without question. I’m not arguing right or wrong, my point is, any mind can be brainwashed.

If brainwashing can be done in such a short time, think of what years of public school have done to you, not to mention television, without your knowledge. I laugh when I hear someone in government talk about the extremists in other countries, or even in this country, about their being brainwashed. Strictly because they disagree or oppose the public policy in this country, or their beliefs are contrary to Judeo Christian beliefs. For the average American to get a full picture of what it means to be brainwashed, they need to look in a mirror, examine their own thoughts and beliefs, and how they came by them. The mind set in this county is, it is only others that can be brainwashed; this is what makes me laugh.

The indoctrination sponsored by government through the public schools, and the social engineering by government to create a Country of mind numb robots, that function as the renewable resources they are legally defined to be, is a crime.

No one wants to think they could be so easily manipulated, but you have been, just as I was. Why is the public manipulated in such a way? Because they make better slaves. Just as it serves those that orchestrate this maniacal system, to cause strife between the races and religions, the blacks to hate whites, or vice versa, the poor to hate the rich, or vice versa, the Protestants to hate the Catholics, or both religions to hate all other religions, and vice versa. They keep everyone, distracted with a multitude of issues, so busy earning a living, they have no time to educate themselves. Just as Thomas Jefferson warned, we would be satisfied with the crumbs from our masters table, and the sixteen hours a day it would take to earn them.

You can take any child, I don’t care what nationality, keep that child from the teachings that are indigenous to his people, teach him the contrary and that child that grows into an adult, will reject the beliefs that are indigenous to his people, in preference to his indoctrination. Take an Anglo Saxon, Catholic or Protestant that has no knowledge of the Muslim faith, indoctrinate that child in the Muslim faith, and that child will be a Muslim till death and will be capable of taking up arms against a non Muslim, or Nation.

This is THE truth, I don’t care what religion you are, or what ethnicity you are, nor does it matter the level of your intelligence. Whatever was programmed into you as a child, into the human mind, God, god, or lack of a God or god, country or religion. Brainwashing subjugates that person’s beliefs the rest of his or her life, and will determine how they disseminate all information that comes to them later in life, either accepting it or rejecting it, based on whether or not it agrees with their programming as a child and young adult. Only through deprogramming and reprogramming can this be changed. As an adult you can be reprogrammed, if certain procedures are used, as I pointed out above, describing the USMC. How much more susceptible is a child? A child’s mind is a empty hard disk so to speak, it will accept whatever operating system you install on it.

I wrote the following analogy several years ago, I think it may help, more now, since more people understand the function of a computer.
“If you have some knowledge of computers, you know that the operating system; I’ll use DOS as an example, is at the lowest level on the hard drive, it is the foundation on which the rest of the data is built and disseminated. The human mind is no different, your operating system is your core beliefs, God, parents teaching, school; with many in this country you can substitute government for God.

Before your mind accepts any information, it is first disseminated by your core beliefs and rejected if the information coming in is in conflict with your core beliefs. Just as with a hard drive, that is programmed with say DOS 5, all programs installed on the hard drive, have to be accepted by DOS 5 as compatible and not harmful to the operating system. If DOS 5 finds the program your trying to install is in conflict with the operating system, it will be rejected. Likewise, if you input certain information into the human mind during the programming years, you will have predictable behavior by that person, just as with the computer, from birth all the way to the grave.

The only way to change or modify the core beliefs of a human, is to override the existing information with new or modified information, that has to come from such a reliable source, the human mind will allow itself to be reprogrammed, causing the belief structure to be changed. Just as the computer will not allow DOS 5 to be upgraded to DOS 6, unless it recognizes it as coming from its creator, Microsoft. The most reliable and reputable source as far as the computer is concerned. With a human mind, it depends how far down you are going into the program, and what are the predominant core beliefs. The core beliefs in place will determine the level of reliability as well as the source of the information needed, before the information will be accepted. It’s sometimes necessary to deprogram the human mind, just as you would format a hard drive, figuratively speaking, to remove faulty data or software. This is very similar to what takes place with the human mind that is deprogrammed, you then reinstall the program you want, reprogram the mind. Just as you would install a new operating system on a hard drive, after you format the drive.

Let me give you another example as to how this works. I know through understanding this principle, through self examination of my beliefs, and the information that created them, that the Bible and Jesus are THE ONLY reality, and that Satan is the orchestrator, the manipulator of the governments, thereby responsible for the World in which we live today, but allowed by God Almighty for the fulfillment of His Son’s Word, and the operation of Jesus’ Kingdom, in which he rules the World and controls the governments of the World with a Rod of Iron.

Now, examine how the statement above effected you, how did you react, but more importantly, Why? I know you reacted, in an instant of time, without any effort or forethought on your part, and with no awareness the process was taking place. You formed an opinion, the information was either accepted or rejected.

WHY? You had no idea while reading the above paragraph, that your thought process was being manipulated, causing you to react a particular way. Folks this happens to everyone daily, your response is predictable. Based on how Americans have been programmed as a child by their parents, and later by the schools, churches, media and government. I want you to be able to recognize this, this is the only way you can be truly free. Be honest with yourself here, no one knows but you. What sets apart your reaction, from say a Christian’s, from a Muslim’s, or a Baptist’s from a Catholic’s, etc.? How do you know your reaction is correct, and that the information you learned years before was correct? You just used your prior programming to disseminate the statement I made above. Are you correct? Have you checked it out? Do you have proof? Did you not react to the statement I made above with the information you were programmed with? Would not your reaction have been different if you were raised as a Muslim versus a Christian, or an Atheist? Be honest, think about your immediate reaction to what I said, compare the reaction you had to what you could imagine coming from yourself if you were programmed another way. All humans are the same in regards to their creation, the mind of a Muslim works the same as a Christian. So why are there different reactions to what I said above? Programming, brainwashing to be blunt. The example I gave deals with religion, but replace religion with any subject, any reaction you have is based on your prior programming. Until you understand this you will never be free and be able to think outside of the box. To go against the way your programmers want you to think.

Why did God Almighty create Man, including Woman with this feature? To protect Man from error, which would bring about Man’s separation from God Almighty, and ultimately cause Man’s death. The circumvention of God’s creation is what happened in the garden of Eden, “reprogramming”. Satan understood this principle, and used it against Man, by enticing Man to see with the flesh instead of his spirit and programming provided by God Almighty, by asking Man, “hath God Said”, just enough doubt to question God Almighty, to get Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge. What else did Satan say? “You’ll be as God, knowing good and evil” from that point, the programming and the built in protection given God Almighty’s creation, was perverted and used against God’s creation, Man. What is the relevance? The same mind created by God Almighty, will believe anything it is programmed with, truth or a lie, good or evil. Without God’s Word and Spirit, Jesus as your foundation, any programming is possible. As I said above you can take any child, and create anything from a Jeffery Dommer, to George Washington; of course I’m speaking of morals and core beliefs, not intellect. The human flesh is capable of any evil or atrocity, we have many historical examples of this. Many have been perpetrated by the different religions and governments. Only through understanding the human mind and how it works, and that there are forces in the World using this understanding of the mind against you, will you be able to think outside the box, only with the correct building blocks, the foundational programming provide by God’s Word and His Son Jesus Christ can you disseminate the information being pumped into you, no matter what medium it comes at you, through government controlled schools, through the media or through religion. There are many different mediums of indoctrination. I hope through self examination you will be able to analyze the beliefs you hold. Beliefs that have been provided for you, which you have accepted as truth without confirming the information. Beliefs you have accepted solely because of supposed reliability of the source, in the belief the source would never lie to you, or that the source has your best interest at heart.

Chapters

Secular

1. Letters from Pope Innocent III, to King John.
2. The Pope’s creation of the Knights Templars.
3. Betrayal of the Knights by the Pope and the kings they served.
4. Connection of our flag to the Pope, and the secret societies.
5. The bridge between the secular and the Biblical, the Knights Templar and Lawyers.
6. Conclusion

My Comments are in brackets []

Chapter 1

Letters from Pope Innocent III, to King John

[America, for that matter the whole World, the documents below will conflict with what you have been taught by government sponsored schools and the government sponsored churches. I wrote about the information contained in the below letters, in my book called “The United States Is Still A British Colony”. I pointed out that in the 1213 Charta, the king gave all of England and Ireland to Pope Innocent III. Many people still find this hard to believe, or understanding what they have read in this Charter. To do so Challenges what they have accepted as truth for years. Some wonder if true, what is the relevance. I made it clear what the relevance is, not just the obvious, that the Pope was now a legal party, as of 1213, in regards to the affairs of England, Ireland and the United States, by way of the charters creating the United States.

Since Britain’s rejection of the Catholic Church in 1689, when they cast off the Pope’s religion and bulls, for the Protestant religion, the Pope has used any means to regain control. This needs to be understood by every person in the World, for knowledge is freedom and it will change our World.

The documents that frame our country, including the Fairfax Resolves, Declaration of Independence, etc., are said to be derived from the 1215 Magna Charta, a document declared null and void by the Pope. I explained the Pope’s authority to inject his will was made possible by what happened in the 1213 Charter. The king became a tenant and trustee of the Pope, again proof of this is the fact that a rent was paid by the king to the Pope. The Pope was now a legal party to whatever transpired in England, concerning his new possessions, with an exception that I’ll get into later. I made these statements based on contract law, which the courts would have to uphold. Since the 1689 Bill of Rights, the appearance is that these documents have no relevance. For sure between the years of 1213 and 1689, the Pope’s power and bulls changed the World. I stated years ago that the Magna Charta was an illegal document, based on the actions of the Barons, it was null and void.

The letters below clarify what I had written, concerning the 1213 and 1215 Charters. Here you have the actual communication between the Pope and the king, not my opinion, that prove I was correct in my assessment.

The 1213 Charta was written May 15, 1213, the first letter below was two months later, in which the Pope accepts the king’s offer. This would be a good time to cover again the legal construction of a contract; offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration. If you are not aware of it, a contract between parties overrules any civil or common law right. It does not matter how absurd a contract is, it just has to meet the above legal definition, and be free from fraud. The king offered his kingdom to the Pope as reparation for his supposed sins against the Pope, the Pope accepted the king’s offer, the valuable consideration was the king’s payment of a 1000 marks. The king as sovereign transferred his status and property to the Pope, and here is the exception, through a lie perpetrated by the Pope, made possible by the king’s ignorance of God’s Word. The king was lead to believe he would, for a lack of a better way to put it, go to hell, unless he made this agreement with the Pope.]

Letter from Pope Innocent III, to king John, July 6, 1213

“To Him, who from evil is able to bring forth good, we render thanks for having mercifully inspired you to make fitting reparation for the losses and wrongs inflicted upon the Church: for you have both accepted the form of reparation which had been prepared after much consideration, and you have also put your person and territory under apostolic suzerainty by right of lordship making over in perpetuity to the Holy Roman Church your kingdoms of England and Ireland, to be held through the church and of the Church, subject to an annual payment of 700 marks for England and 300 marks for Ireland, as is more fully and explicitly contained in your legally framed charter.”
Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III, concerning England
(1198-1216), Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1956. page 149

“You now hold your kingdoms by a more exalted and surer title than before, for the kingdom is become a royal priesthood and the priesthood a kingdom of priests as stated by Peter in the Epistle and Moses in the Law. Come, then, exalted prince, fulfil the promises given and confirm the concessions offered, so that God Almighty may ever fulfil any righteous desire of yours and confirm any honorable purpose enabling you so to walk amid temporal blessings as not to fail of winning the eternal.”
Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III, concerning England
(1198-1216), Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1956. page 149-150

“The aforesaid legate, having full knowledge of our mind, will instruct and reassure you as to our good pleasure.”
Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III, concerning England
(1198-1216), Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1956. Page 151

[Below is a Quote from the second letter from the Pope, echoing the transfer of the king’s property, to the Pope.]

Letter from Pope Innocent III, to King John, November 4, 1213
“….and manifestly grateful, in that, to make full amends for your sins, you have offered yourself and your property to God and the Church.”
Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III, concerning England
(1198-1216), Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1956. Page 168

[The third letter below, is the legal closing of the contract, payment of the 1000 marks to the Pope, the signing of the document with the signing of the witness, sealed with the king’s golden seal. This document declares that the contract between the king and the Pope was legal and binding on all parties, heirs and successors, forever. You will notice if you study closely the likeness in the legalize of these letters and the later Charters written by the king’s barristers, regarding the incorporation of America.]

Letter from Pope Innocent III, to king John, April 24, 1214

[This is the heading to this letter.]

“INNOCENT, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, TO HIS WELL-
BELOVED SON IN CHRIST, JOHN ILLUSTRIOUS KING OF THE ENGLISH, AND
TO HIS LEGITIMATE FREE-BORN HEIRS FOR EVER.”

“The King of kings and Lord of lords, Jesus Christ, a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech, has so established in the Church His kingdom and His priesthood that the one is a kingdom of priests and the other a royal priesthood, as is testified by Moses in the Law and by Peter in his Epistle; and over all He has set one whom He has appointed as His Vicar on earth, so that, as every knee is bowed to Jesus, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, so all men should obey His Vicar and strive that there may be one fold and one shepherd.”
Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III, concerning England
(1198-1216), Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1956. Page 177

“….so that those provinces which from of old have had the Holy Roman Church as their proper teacher in spiritual matters should now in temporal things also have her as their peculiar sovereign. You, whom God has chosen as a suitable minister to effect this, by a devout and spontaneous act of will and on the general advice of your barons have offered and yield, in the form of an annual payment of a thousand marks, yourself and your kingdoms of England and Ireland, with all their rights and appurtenances, the Holy Roman Church and to us and our successors, to be our right and our property as is stated in your official letter attested by a golden seal, the literal tenor of which is as follows:

‘John, by the grace of God king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, count of Anjou, to all the faithful of Christ who may see this charter, greeting in the Lord.

‘By this charter attested by our golden seal we wish it to be known to you all that, having in many things offended God and Holy Church our mother and being therefore in the utmost need of divine mercy and possessing nothing but ourselves and our kingdoms that we can worthily offer as due amends to God and the Church, we desire to humble ourselves for the sake of Him who for us humbled Himself even unto death; and inspired by the grace of the Holy Spirit not induced by force nor compelled by fear, but of our own good and spontaneous will and on the general advice of our barons we offer and freely yield to God, and to SS Peter and Paul His apostles, and to the Holy Roman Church our mother, and to our lord Pope Innocent III and his catholic successors, the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom of Ireland with all their rights and appurtenances for the remission of our sins and the sins of our whole family, both the living and the dead. And now, receiving back these kingdoms from God and the Roman Church and holding them a feudatory vassal, in the presence of our venerable father, lord Nicholas, bishop of Tusculum, legate of the Apostolic See, and of Pandulf, subdeacon and member of household fealty henceforth to our lord aforesaid, Pope Innocent, and to his catholic successors, and to the Roman Church, in the terms hereinunder stated; and we have publicly paid liege homage for the said kingdoms to God, and to the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and to the Roman Church, and to our lord aforesaid, Pope Innocent III, at the hands of the said legate who accepts our homage in place and instead of our said lord, the Pope; and we bind in perpetuity our successors and legitimate heirs that without question they must similarly render fealty and acknowledge homage to the Supreme Pontiff holding office at the time and to the Roman church. As a token of this our perpetual offering and concession we will and decree that out of the proper and special revenues of our said kingdoms, in lieu of all service and payment which we should render for them, the Roman church is to receive annually, without prejudice to the payment of Peter’s pence, one thousand marks sterling five hundred at the feast of Michael and five hundred at Easter that is, seven hundred for the kingdom of England and tree hundred for the kingdom of Ireland, subject to the maintenance for us and our heirs of our jurisdiction, privileges, and regalities. Desiring all these terms, exactly as stated, to be forever ratified and valid, we bind ourselves and our successors not to contravene them; and if we or any of our successors shall presume to contravene them, then, no matter who he be, unless on due warning he come to his senses, let him lose the title to the kingdom, and let this document of offer and concession remain ever valid.

‘I, John, by grace of God king of England and lord of Ireland, will from this hour henceforward be faithful to God and Saint Peter and the Roman Church and my lord Pope Innocent III and his catholic successors. I will not take part in deed, word, agreement, or plan whereby they should lose life or limb or be treacherously taken prisoners; any injury to them, if aware of it, I will prevent and will check if I can; and otherwise, I will notify them as soon as possible, or inform a person whom I can trust without fail to tell them; any counsel they have entrusted to me either personally or by envoys or by letter I will keep secret, nor will I wittingly divulge it to anyone to their disadvantage. I will help in maintaining and defending, to the utmost of my power, against all men, the patrimony of Saint Peter, and particularly the kingdom of England and the kingdom of Ireland. So help me God and the Holy Gospels of God whereon I swear.

‘To prevent any questioning of these terms at any time in the future, and for the greater surety of our offer and concession, we have caused this charter to be made and to be sealed with our golden seal; and as tribute for this the first year we pay a thousand marks sterling to the Roman Church by the hand of the said legate. (The witness were listed here), signed October 3, 1213

‘This offer and concession so piously and wisely made we regard as acceptable and valid, and we take under the protection of Saint Peter and of ourselves your person and the persons of your heirs together with the said kingdoms and their appurtenances and all other goods which are now reasonably held or may in future be so held: to you and to your heirs, according to the terms set out above and by the general advice of our brethren, we grant the said kingdoms in fief and confirm them by this privilege, on condition that any of your heirs on receiving the crown will publicly acknowledge this as a fief held of the Supreme Pontiff and of the Roman Church, and will take an oath of fealty to them. Let no man, therefore, have power to infringe this document of our concession and confirmation, or presume to oppose it. If any man dare to do so, let him know that he will incur the anger of Almighty God and of SS Peter and Paul, His apostles. Amen, amen, Amen.

(Rota) I, Innocent, bishop of the Catholic Church, have signed. Farewell. (The other signers were listed below)
Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III, concerning England
(1198-1216), Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd, 1956. Page 178-183

[The last letter is from Pope Innocent III, to the king, with record of the king’s appeals to the Pope, the Pope puts the rebellious barons on notice, also the world, of his legal claims. In this letter, the Pope declares the Magna Charta was to be ignored, and reports that the king informed the barons he had no legal authority to sign the Magna Charta. The Pope declared the Magna Charta null and void.]

Letter from Pope Innocent III, to king John, August 24, 1215

“….such complete amends that he not only paid compensation for losses and restored property wrongfully seized, but also conferred full liberty on the English church; and further, on the relaxation of the two sentences, he yielded his kingdom of England and of Ireland to St Peter and the Roman Church, and received it from us Again as fief under an annual payment of one thousand marks, having sworn an oath of fealty to us, as is clearly stated in his privilege furnished with a golden seal;….”
Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III, concerning England
(1198-1216), Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd, 1956. Page 212

“For we in our letters, and we equally through the archbishop and bishops, have asked and advised the king, enjoining it on him as he hopes to have his sins remitted, to treat these magnates and nobles kindly and to hear their just petitions graciously, so that they too might recognize with gladness how by divine grace he had had a change of heart, and that thereby they and their heirs should serve him and his heirs readily and loyally; and we also asked him to grant them full safe conduct for the outward and homeward journey and the time between, so that if they could not arrive at agreement the dispute might be decided in his court by their peers ACCORDING TO THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF THE KINGDOM. But before the envoys bearing this wise and just mandate and reached England, the barons threw over their oath of fealty; and through, even if the king had wrongfully oppressed them, they should not have proceeded against him by constituting themselves both judges and executors of the judgement in their own suit, yet, openly conspiring as vassals against their lord and as knights against their king, they leagued themselves with his acknowledged enemies as well as with others, and dared to make war on him, occupying and devastating his territory and even seizing the city of London, the capital of the kingdom, which had been treacherously surrendered to them. Meantime the aforesaid envoys returned to England and the king offered, in accordance with the terms of our mandate, to grant the barons full justice. This they altogether rejected and began to stretch forth their hands to deeds still worse. So the king, appealing to our tribunal, offered to grant them justice before us to whom the decision of this suit belonged by reason of our lordship: but this they utterly rejected. Then he offered that four discreet men chosen by him and four more chosen by themselves should, together with us, end the dispute, and he promised that, first in his reforms, he would repeal all abuses introduced into England in his reign: but this also they contemptuously refused. Finally, THE KING DECLARED TO THEM THAT, SINCE THE LORDSHIP OF THE KINGDOM BELONGED TO THE ROMAN CHURCH, HE NEITHER COULD NOR SHOULD, WITHOUT OUR SPECIAL MANDATE, MAKE ANY CHANGE IN IT TO OUR PREJUDICE: and so he again appealed to our tribunal, placing under apostolic protection both himself and his kingdom with all his honour and rights. But making no progress by any method, he asked the archbishop and the bishops to execute our mandate, to defend the rights of the Roman Church, and to protect himself in accordance with the form of the privilege granted to Crusaders. When the archbishop and bishops would not take any action, seeing himself bereft of almost all counsel and help, he did not dare to refuse what the barons had dared to demand. And so by such violence and fear as might affect the most courageous of men he was forced to demeaning but also illegal and unjust, thereby lessening unduly and impairing his royal rights and dignity….we refuse to ignore such shameless presumption, for thereby the Apostolic See would be dishonoured, the king’s rights injured, the English nation shamed, and the whole plan for a Crusade seriously endangered; and as this danger would be imminent if concessions, thus extorted from a great prince who has taken the cross, were not cancelled by our authority, even though he himself should prefer them to be upheld, on behalf of Almighty God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and by the authority of SS Peter and Paul His Apostles, and by our own authority, acting on the general advice of our brethren, we utterly reject and condemn this settlement, and under threat of excommunication we order that the king should not dare to observe it and that the barons and their associates should not require it to be observed: the charter, with all undertakings and guarantees whether confirming it or resulting from it, we declare to be null, and void of all validity for ever. Wherefore, let no man deem it lawful to infringe this document of our annulment and prohibition, or presume to oppose it. If anyone should presume to do so, let him know that he will incur the anger of Almighty God and of SS Peter and Paul His.”
Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III, concerning England
(1198-1216), Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1956. Page 214-216

“barons until the Sunday after Easter on the pretext that their demands were too complex for immediate decision. The Pope’s reply to the king’s message was a suggestion of delay by the device of “arbitration.” On May 9, 1215, the king proposed to the barons “arbitration” before a court consisting of representatives of himself, of the barons and of the Pope, after the barons had besieged the royal castle at Northampton. This proposal was rejected by the barons. And they answered on May 17, 1215, by capturing London. The king’s negotiators, who included Archbishop Langton, finally effected an agreement with the barons, about June 10, 1215, at a conference at Runnymede, that was signed and sealed by King John on or about the date that the Magna Carta bears, June 15, 1215.

After he had been forced to sign the Magna Carta by threat of defeat by the barons, King John sent word of it, by envoy, to the Pope. The envoys returned several months later, bearing Papal bulls, dated August 24 and 25. Pope Innocent III declared the Magna Carta to be:

“…unlawful and unjust as it is base and shameful…whereby the Apostolic See is brought into contempt, the Royal Prerogative diminished, the English outraged, and the whole Enterprise of the Crusade greatly imperiled.” (211:14)

On these grounds and on the ground that “the king had been compelled to enter upon it by force and fear” (211:14), and On the implied ground that it violated the basic tenets of Christianity in its denial of dictatorial rights to him and his henchmen, POPE INNOCENT III DENIED ON BEHALF OF THE CHURCH THE DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AS EMBODIED IN THE MAGNA CARTA, BECAUSE POSSESSION OF RIGHTS BY ANYONE VIOLATES THE TENETS OF THE CHURCH.

The Papal bulls were greeted by the barons with a resumption of the civil war in England. The Pope was so enraged at the failure of Archbishop of Canterbury Langton to destroy the rebellious barons and carry out the orders incorporated in his bull, that he suspended him from his office when he visited Rome at the end of September 1215, to attend the Fourth Lateran Council. Undoubtedly with the consent, and probably at the direction of the Vatican, the French invaded England under Prince Louis and joined forces in a treacherous alliance with the barons, as pretender to the throne of King John.

The sudden death of King John, in October 1216, brought to the throne his nine-year-old son, as King Henry III. His supporters revived the Magna Carta to appease the barons and gain their support against the pretender who was badly routed. These circumstances barred any further effective opposition to the Magna Carta by the Pope, without risking loss of the 666 pounds tribute.”

Chapter 2

The Pope’s creation of the Knights Templars

[In the below quotes You’ll see that the Knights Templars were a creation of the Pope. Their special grant of nobility came from the Pope, not to mention the grants they received from the king of England, including their being the first tax collectors on income. They were arguably the first International Bankers. You’ll see that the Knights Templars were agents of the Pope, fiduciaries of the king. The Knights Templars transferred the king’s payment to the Pope, for the kings agreement in 1213, transferring his holdings to the Pope, and receiving them back as fief, paying yearly as valuable consideration of their agreement, making the agreement perfectly legal. The Knights Templars were the military arm of the Pope, and they answered only to him, they were bound to no civil law, no authority on earth could subject them to their law or jurisdiction.]

“As they had no fixed place of abode, Baldwin II, King of Jerusalem, gave them a residence within the precincts of his own place on Mount Moriah near the church known as the Temple of Solomon, while the clergy of the Temple, inspired by his example, added ground for the erection of necessary offices, and other benefactors supplied the means of maintaining the Knights in food and clothing. From their sacrifice of all worldly advantage, and this the first place of their settlement, they became known as the poor fellow-soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Solomon (Pauperes Commilitones Christi et Templi Salomonis). Thus was founded in 1118 the famous Brotherhood of Soldier Monks the Knights of the Temple.

At first their progress was slow; few joined them in their seemingly inglorious toil. At the end of nine years they had obtained seven recruits. Then, however, the saintly Bernard of Clairvaux lent them the aid of his powerful advocacy, and drew up for their guidance rules of conduct soon embodied and drew up their guidance rules of conduct soon embodied in the more elaborate code which receive the sanction of the Council of Troyes (1128). By Pope Honorius II they were given a distinctive habit in a white mantile, symbolical of purity and innocence; to which, twenty years later, Pope Engenius III added the red cross seal and badge of martydom thus proclaiming by the sign they bore the dedication of their lives to the defence of pilgrims and the Holy Land.” The History Of The Temple, London, J. Bruce Williamson, pages 5-6

“By the famous Bull Omne datum optimum, first published in 1162 and a second time ten years later, Pope Alexander III raised the Order to a position of extraordinary privilege, and rendered them immune from all jurisdiction, lay or ecclesiastical, other than that of the Holy See….

….Thus the Templars became independent of all control save that of the Supreme Pontiff, and as proceedings of their chapters were secret, virtually a sealed book to the rest of the Catholic Church. The admission of priests, however, did not place them on a footing of equality with the lay brethren, to whom were reserved all the powers of government. Further, only a knight who had taken the vows of the Order could hold the office of Grand Master, and to the vows of the Order could hold the office of Grand Master, and to the Grand Master all the members were bound by their vows to render implicit obedience. In the Church at large authority lay with the priest, only he could bind and loose, could pronounce the dread sentence of excommunication, and grant deliverance from it by absolution. This was the power by which, in the Middle Ages, the Church was able to lay a restraining hand on the most licentious Rulers and even to shake the thrones of Kings.” The History Of The Temple, London, J. Bruce Williamson, pages 6, 12, 13

“The estates of the Order were managed in the interests of the common object, the defense of Christianity in the East, and the revenues they yielded devoted to that purpose. They formed a network over Christendom, and the means of communication this elaborate organization afforded led to the Templars becoming the financial agents of the Crusaders and later the Bankers of Kings and Princes.

From the first the Knights in England were closely associated with the royal Court, and the prestige this connection gave the Order no doubt often induced them to undertake duties not contemplated by their pious Founders. As laymen, yet invested with ecclesiastical sanctity and a power within the kingdom though not of it, their counsel was frequently sought by embarrassed Rulers often at issue with rebellious subjects in the rude age in which they flourished. Thus the New Temple became a recognized center of meeting and conference in great affairs of Church and State. Bound to the Popes by a peculiar allegiance, the hospitality of the Templars was often extended to foreign Prelates and other officers of the mediaeval Church who visited England on the business of the Holy see. The Master of the Temple ranked as one of the Magnates of the Realm, and successive Kings made use of his services as envoy in the conduct of negotiations with other Princes.” The History Of The Temple, London, J. Bruce Williamson, pages 16, 17

“….These relate chiefly to the King’s business, but there can be no doubt that in multitudes of other private cases of which there is now no record the same thing was going on. Moreover, from a very early date the Crown made use of the services of Templars as royal agents in the collection of monies payable under subsidies granted the King by the Magnates lay and ecclesiastical. Thus in 1188 Henry II appointed Gilbert de Ogrestan, a Brother of the Temple, with others to collect the tenth known as the Saladin Tithe, believed to be the first tax levied upon personal property in England….

….It is manifest also that the Knights carried on a regular business of foreign exchange and constantly undertook, in consideration of money paid to them at the New Temple, to discharge abroad debts owing to foreign creditors by persons resident in England. Further, the New Temple is frequently named as the place where money borrowed or a debt otherwise arising is to be paid or discharged….

….By the second and third, dated respectively January 1st and 4th, 1214, a sum of 6000 marks was ordered to be paid from the Temple Treasury to Pandulph the Papal Legate, and another sum of 1000 marks to the same person, together with Thomas de Erdington and Almeric de Sacy. In the following year John paid to the Master of the Temple 1100 marks, which he had borrowed from the Order to enable him to bring troops to England from Ponthieu.” The History Of The Temple, London, J. Bruce Williamson, pages 30, 31

“Further gifts still continued to be showered on the Order. As late as April, 1303 license was granted the Templars to hold lands in mortmain, received from six different grantees.”
The History Of The Temple, London, J. Bruce Williamson, page 43 footnote

Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem

“The most important of all the military orders, both for the extent of its area and for its duration. It is said to have existed before the Crusades and is not extinct at the present time. During this long career it has not always borne the same name. Known as Hospitallers of Jerusalem until 1309, the members were called Knights of Rhodes from 1309 till 1522, and have been called Knights of Malta since 1530.” Catholic Encyclopedia

“Present State of the Order”

The secularization of the property of the order in Protestant countries was extended by the French Revolution to the greater number of Catholic countries. On the other hand, Czar Paul of Russia assigned them considerable property in his domains (1797), and in return was elected grand master, but his election was not recognized by the pope. From that time forward the pope has named the grand master of the bailiff who takes his place. From 1805 to 1879 there was no grand master, buut Leo XIII re-established th dignity, bestowing it on an Austrian, Geschi di Sancta Croce. It is now (1910) held by Galeazzo von Thun Hohenstein. The actual conditions for admission to the order are: nobility of sixteen quarterings, the Catholic Faith, attainment of full legal age, integrity of character, and corresponding social position. There are now in existence only four great priories, one in Bohemia, and three in Italy. There are still commanders and several classes of knights, with different insignia, but all wear the same eight-pointed Maltese cross (see DECORATIONS, PONTIFICAL).” Catholic Encyclopedia

Military Orders

England

“In England, Edward III, in memory of the legendary Knights of the Round Table, established in 1349 brotherhood of twenty-five knights, exclusive of princes of the blood and foreign princes, with St. George as its patron and with its chapel in Windsor Castle for the holding of chapters. This, the Order of the Garter, takes its name from the characteristic badge, won on the left knee. The choice of this badge has given rise to various anecdotes of doubtful authenticity. Nothing is now known of the original object of the Order of the Bath, the creation of which dates from the coronation of Henry IV (1399). A third order, Scottish by origin, is that of the Order of the Thistle, dating from the reign of James V of Scotland (1534). These orders still exist, though they have been protestantized.” Catholic Encyclopedia

Religious State

“The knights of the great orders were regarded in the Church as analogous to monks whose three vows they professed and whose immunities they shared. They were answerable to the pope alone; they had their chapels, their clerics, and their cemeteries, all exempted from the jurisdiction of the secular clergy. Their landed property was free from tithes. They were not subject to the interdicts which the bishops in those days employed so freely. They did not all follow the same monastic rule. The Templars and orders derived from them followed the Cistercian Reform. The Hospitallers followed the Rule of St. Augustine. Nevertheless, in consequence of the relaxation which manifested itself among them after the period of the crusades, the Holy See introduced mitigations in favour of the non-clerical brethren. For these it was difficult to maintain the rule of celibacy in all its rigour; they were permitted, in certain orders, to marry once, and that only with a maiden. Even where second marriages were tolerated, they had to vow conjugal fidelity, so that if they violated this obligation of the natural law they sinned doubly against the law and against their vow. Besides the three vows, the rule bound the brethren to the exercises of the monastic life such as the recitation of the Hours, for which, in the case of illiterates, a fixed number of Paters was substituted. It also prescribed their dress and their food, and their feast, abstinence, and fast days. Lastly, the rule imposed detailed obligations in regard to the election of dignitaries and the admission of members to the two ranks of combatants — knights and men-at-arms — and the two of non-combatants – chaplains, to whom all sacerdotal functions were reserved, and casaliers, or tenants, who were charged with the management of temporal affairs.” Catholic Encyclopedia

Military Organizations

“The military organization of the orders was uniform, explained by that law of war which compels the belligerent to maintain his military apparatus on a level with those of his adversary, on pain of defeat. The strength of an army was in its cavalry, and to this type the armament, mounting, and tactics of the military orders conformed. The knights-brethren were the heavy cavalry; the men-at-arms-brethren, the light cavalry. The former were entitled to three horses a piece; the latter had to be content with one. Among the former, only knights of tried prowess were admitted, or, in default of this qualification, sons of knights, because in such families the warlike spirit and military training were hereditary. The consequence was that the knights, properly so-called, were never very numerous; they formed a corps d’lite which carried the great mass of the crusaders. Gathered in convents which were also barracks, combining with the passive obedience of the soldier, the spontaneous submission of the religious, living shoulder to shoulder in brotherly union, commander and subordinate, these orders surpassed, in that cohesiveness which is the ideal of every military organization, the most famous bodies of picked soldiery known to history, from the Macedonian phalanx to the Ottoman Janissaries.”

Economic Organization

“The importance acquired by the military orders during the course of the Middle Ages may be measured by the extent of their territorial possessions, scattered throughout Europe. In the thirteenth century nine thousand manors formed the portion of the Templars; thirteen thousand that of the Hospitallers. These temporalities were an integral part of the ecclesiastical domain, and as such had a sacred character which placed them beyond liability to profane uses or to secular imposts. They differed from the temporalities of other monastic institutions only in the centralized system of their administration. While within each of the other religious institutes every abbey was autonomous, all the houses of a military order were bound to contribute their revenues, after deducting expenses, to a central treasury. As a result of this enormous circulation of capital controlled by the orders, their wealth could be applied to financial operations which made them veritable credit and deposit banks. Their perfect good faith earned for them the implicit confidence of the Church and of temporal rulers. The papacy employed them to collect contributions for the crusades; princes did not hesitate to entrust to them their personal property. In this respect, again, the military orders were model institutions.” Catholic Encyclopedia

Chapter 3

Betrayal of the knights by the Pope and the king’s they served

[The Knights Templars were disbanded in 1312 after the Pope had accused them of heresy, corruption and abuse of their titles of nobility. Another secret group called Knights Hospitallers received the property held by the Knights Templars.

The claim that Pope Clement V was a puppet of the French king is ludicrous. Were political favors extended back and fourth? Sure, but to suggest more than this flies in the face of historical fact. Once the Templars had out lived their usefulness and their power had grown large enough to threaten the Pope, the Pope decided it was time to destroy them, and see to it their holdings, which were acquired through Papal favor, escheated back to the Pope, or to be held by his trustee the king, and were again granted to the next Papal secret society.

The plot between the Pope and the French king is the most heinous, despicable and evil betrayal of trust in the history of mankind. It was such a vile plot it could only have been born in hell in the mind of Satan carried out by his henchman, the Pope and king of France, later to include the king of England. I’m not a defender of the Templars, nor do I agree with their religion, but what was done to them by the Pope is the ultimate betrayal.

This paper is not an attack on the people, that practice Catholicism. They have as much right as the Baptist to go to hell, as with followers of other “religions”. However, I recognize the honor and dedication of the Templars, for their service to the Pope and Catholicism; for which they learned in the most horrible way, was misplaced faith and loyalty. The enormity of the evil plot and betrayal of these honorable men is dwarfed only by the betrayal and murder of Jesus Christ, carried out by the Jews. Through selective history being taught, and this history being hidden, the World has been kept ignorant of the dastardly and evil destruction of the Templars, to obtain their wealth and power. The horrendous and baseless claims created by the Pope, to slander honorable men sworn to give their lives and fortune to this evil and vile man, who claims to be the vicar of Christ, redefines betrayal. The only analogy I can give to compare to what the Pope did would be, a mother murdering her children while they look into her eyes with total faith, trust and love as she murders them. Even though I don’t support the religious or political views of the betrayed Templars, to see through history how these honorable men were shamed and murdered by the one person they trusted, who declared to be second only to Jesus Christ, the moral compass of the Church Jesus Christ established, makes me mad as Hell!

When the perpetrators of this evil plot against honorable men, come before Jesus Christ at the Judgement Seat, stand back. Their torture throughout eternity will be second only to Satan himself.

A glimpse of righteous indignation and judgement was carried out by the knights Templars of England, those that survived the Pope’s inquisition. Those of you that saw the movie Braveheart will remember the close of the movie, when Robert the Bruce decided to attack the king and his soldiers. The movie stopped at that point, but the battle did not. They fought all day, some accounts say two days. Then at the end of the day appearing at the rear of the Scottish ranks, attacking through the worst possible terrain, the king of England and his knights saw what no doubt filled them with horror, proven by their action. The 500 English Templars entered the battle, these battle hardened swordsmen engaged the English soldiers, who were no match for the Templars. The Templars were the special forces or the Bruce Lees of their day, battle hardened men, expert in the Art of War. The carnage the king of England and his knights saw, caused them to flee the field of battle, the kings soldiers seeing this followed the king, giving the Scots a rout, against 4 to 1 odds, 20,000 English troops against 6,000 poorly armed Scots.

I’m sure the reason the king fled was, because he knew no mercy would be had at the hands of the betrayed Templars, and that he and his knights would have been killed, and there was no one who could stop the Templars attack. I would have given anything to have seen this battle, not for the carnage, but for the justice. All be it not carried out against the main conspirator, the Pope. The victory was no doubt very sweet. Reports say the Templars did not lose a single man on this day of retribution. You see a glimpse of Jesus Word, a 1,000 shall fall by my side, 10,000 by my right hand, also, my enemies shall flee seven ways. History shows the Templars migrated to what is now known as Sweden, and are the bankers and farmers of today, still intrusted with the wealth of the World.

The complicity by the public during the inquisition is proof positive of prior programming of the public, by religion and government, giving the Pope and king a freedom to declare whatever they wanted about the Knights Templars, no matter how absurd, to be believed by the public. The complicity of the public was expected and counted on by the Pope and king, they knew they could act with impunity and with no fear of retaliation by the public. Does the evil perpetrated by the Pope and king, and the complacency of the public remind you of a modern event? Waco! The public having been programmed over the years, then given implanted code words to describe those in the Waco Church, like cult, child molester, extremist in a compound and the possessors of dangerous weapons. Once they were so labeled, the public was totally complacent, even when they saw the Constitution and Bill of Rights being violated by the government, for them that just added more credence to the charges. If the government is using this extreme force, these have to be dangerous people. I have no idea what religion the Davidians practiced, it’s irrelevant. Did the women and children deserve to be tortured and burnt alive?

After the women and children were burnt alive by the government, the public was quick to believe the government’s spin and propaganda, that the Davidians had to have set the fire. The horror and suffering the women and children went through as their skin and eyes were chemically burnt, as their backs were broken by the chemically induced constriction of their muscles, and if still conscious, they slowly drowned by their blood pooling in their lungs. All this occurred before the fire. Their torture was caused by the huge amounts of tear gas pumped into the church. All this occurred as the public watched on television. Do you understand how you have been manipulated by the government and the Press? Compare the propaganda the public was spoon fed by the government and the press at Waco, with what was done to the Knights Templars in the quotes below. There is no difference, it was much easier today thanks to the modern technology utilized by the government and media.]

“The Temple Church was built by the Knights Templars in the twelfth century. It is the third oldest church in London and in it the Knights Templars were accused of performing some very strange Pagan rites. In the Great Fire of 1666 the Temple Church barely escaped.”
Rambles in Old London, George W. Jacobs and Company, page 88

“At this time the occupant of the Papal throne was Bertrand de Got, formerly Archbishop of Bordeaux and now known as Pope Clement V. He had moved the Papacy to Avigonon, and was a puppet in the hands of the French King, to whose influence he owed his elevation to the Pontificate. Philip IV, surnamed le Bel, now ruled France: a Prince whose handsome exterior veiled a nature essentially false and cruel. With revenues depleted by his Flemish Wars, he turned a greedy eye on the wealth of the Templars. Exactly when and how the plot between Philip and his subservient Pope was first hatched has not been disclosed, but it is certain that while still professing publicly the most friendly feelings towards the Order he was secretly planning their destruction.” The History Of The Temple, London, J. Bruce Williamson, pages 44, 45

“….Upon allegations secretly made, charges were drawn up imputing to the Templars infidelity, idolatry, heresy, and the most detestable vice. Proof presented no difficulties, for France was at this time under the Inquisition, and, heresy being charged, the expert hands of the Inquisitors could be relied on to force by torture confessions sufficient to establish guilt. Moreover, the Chief Inquisitor was Philip’s private Confessor, so that in the seclusion of the royal palace all the plans could be secretly matured for bringing to the State. The events which followed have been truly called “the great crime of the Middle Ages.”

Mysterious rumours were first set in circulation defaming the Order. Some of these reached the ears of the Grand Master, who at an interview with Pope Clement denounced them as false and asked for a public inquiry. No inquiry was granted, but Molay seems to have been satisfied that the rumours found no credence from the Holy Father. Philip treated him with a like duplicity, for it was essential the secret of his plot should be carefully guarded till the time was ripe for action. Three years before, in conferring fresh privileges on the Order, he had proclaimed the esteem in which he held them, eulogizing their works of piety and charity, and their magnificent liberality in all times and places, and his outward demeanour gave no indication of the deadly intentions he harboured towards them. Thus no steps were taken by the unsuspecting victims to meet the impending blow. On October 12th, 1307, the Grand Master was honoured with the place of pall bearer beside the King at the obsequies in Paris of the Comtesse de Valois. The very next day the storm burst. Pursuant to royal orders secretly issued a month before, Molay and all the officers and members of the Order who could be found in France were seized and imprisoned, and all their property taken into the King’s hand. Thus the empty coffers of Philip were at once replenished with the immense treasure stored in the Temple at Paris. On the 14th the arrests were followed by a proclamation which set forth the alleged crimes of the Templars, charging the whole Order with idolatry, denying Christ, and spitting on the Cross at initiation, and habitual immorality of the vilest description; while further instruction in their depravity was imparted to the populace assembled for the purpose in the gardens of the royal palace.” The History Of The Temple, London, J. Bruce Williamson, pages 46, 47

“….Further, ignorant of the Pope’s complicity, King Edward also wrote to Clement on behalf of the accused, expressing his amazement and horror at the terrible nature of the charges inspired, as he suggested, by envious and evil disposed persons who turned the good deeds of the Order to works of perversity, and which he was unable to credit because the Master and Brethren of the Temple, constant in the purity of the Catholic Faith, were greatly esteemed by him and all his kingdom in living as well as morals.

Meanwhile, however, Clement had decided to intervene himself in England, and, on November 22nd, had addressed to Edward from Poitiers, where he appears to have been in conference with the French King, one of those mendacious Bulls with which he now sought to poison the mind of Christendom. In this document (Pro Capcione Templariorum), after reciting the crimes of the Templars, their arrests in Fraance, and the seizure of thei property by Philip, which he alleged had been done for its safe custody and the benefit of the Holy Land, he proceeded to state that the Master of the Order had since publicly and spontaneously confessed that the denial of Christ at the instigation of Satan had been made part of their ceremony of initiation, and that many other Brethren of the Temple in different parts of France had also confessed the wickedness charged against them, doing unfeigned penance therefor. Further, he alleged that he himself had examined a Knight of the Order of high birth and authority, who had spontaneously and fully confessed the crime of denying Jesus Christ on admission, and had been present at a Chapter in the Kingdom of Cyprus when a certain nobleman at his initiation by the Master’s command committed this very wickedness in the presence of two hundred members of the Order, of whom about one hundred were Knights. His Holiness accordingly exhorted King Edward with caution and secrecy in one day to arrest all the Templars in his Kingdom and take their property into safe custody.

Although it is clear there was no belief in the charges at the English Court, on receiving this further communication, Edward yielded. Perhaps in that age even it strong Ruler, if a professed son of the Church, could hardly have done otherwise, for, as has been aptly said, ” When the Vicar of Christ himself entered the witness box scepticism was silenced.” The History Of The Temple, London, J. Bruce Williamson, pages 48, 49

In August, 1808, carne another Papal Bull (Faciens Miscericordiam), repeating much that had been alleged in Clement’s former missive to the King but addressed to Winchelsea, Archbishop of Canterbury, and his suffragans. In this Bull the Pope declared that at the very commencement of his Pontificate reports had confidentially reached him that the Grand Master, Preceptors, and Brethren of the Order of the Temple had lapsed into the unspeakable sin of apostasy, the detestable vice of idolatry, the execrable crime of sodomy, and many heresies that his dearest son in Christ, Philip, the illustrious King of the French, had also heard these things, and that the guilt of the Templars had been proved by many confessions, attestations, and depositions of the said Grand Master and many Preceptors and Brethren of the Order in France. That before three Cardinals deputed by himself to inquire and ascertain the truth, the Grand Master and many Preceptors being sworn had deposed and confessed freely and spontaneously without compulsion or fear that on reception into the Order they had denied Christ, spitting upon the Cross; that some had also admitted that with the same denial and spitting they had received others; that certain Brethren had confessed other things horrible and indecent regarding which shame kept him silent; and that on beaded knees, with clasped hands, humbly and earnestly and with many tears, they had begged for absolution. He accordingly directed the Archbishop and Bishops to institute inquiries in England through the Provincial Councils, and in particular to examine the Templars there upon certain articles of accusation transmitted with the Bull, and named two Inquisitors, Deodatus, Abbot of Lagny, and Sicarde de Vaur, Canon of Narbonne, whom he was sending to conduct the examinations, and whom he required the English Bishops to assist. Clement had no doubt heard of the letters King Edward had dispatched to Portugal, Castile, Sicily, and Aragon, for in this Bull he further alleged that King Philip had not acted against the Templars from avarice, not intending to take any of their property for himself, and having wholly removed his hand from it, but following in the illustrious footsteps of his progenitors, from zeal for the orthodox Faith.”
The History Of The Temple, London, J. Bruce Williamson, pages 51, 52

“The articles of accusation sent by the Pope numbered eighty seven. They dealt (i. a.) with the alleged denial of Christ and spitting on the Cross at initiation; alleged acts of indecency between the Preceptors and novitiates; the wearing of cords or belts consecrated to idolatry; alleged acts of immorality; the worshipping of idols (including cats) in their Chapters; disbelief in the Sacraments of the altar and absolution from sin by the Master and Preceptors, being laymen only….

….No evidence was obtained, however, in proof of the Papal allegations. All the members, Knights, Priests, and Serving Brothers, alike denied the charges and protested their innocence.
The History Of The Temple, London, J. Bruce Williamson, page 53

“Meanwhile, under the merciless direction of King Philip and his Inquisitors, the tragedy had been pursuing its cruel course in France. There, those Brethren who did not confess were condemned to perpetual imprisonment, while those who admitted the charges and did not afterwards withdraw their admissions were for the most part absolved and set at liberty. Others who, ashamed of their weakness under torture, subsequently retracted their confessions of guilt and claimed to defend the Order, were seized by Philip’s command and burnt as relapsed heretics. Fifty four so suffered at Paris in one day. Their firmness in adhering to their retractations notwithstanding the terrible consequences and the intrepidity with which they endured a cruel death, astonished all beholders, and point with overwhelming force to the falsity of the charges laid against them.”
The History Of The Temple, London, J. Bruce Williamson, pages 63, 64

“….The fate of James de Molay, the Grand Master of the Temple and some of his superior officers still remained undecided….With Molay, Geoffrey de Charnis, Preceptor of Normandy, and two other Knights of high position, Hugh de Peraud, Visitor of France, and Godfrey de Gonnville, Preceptor of Aquitaine, were arraigned before this tribunal. The two latter abode by their former confessions, and were sentenced to perpetual imprisonment. But the Grand Master and Geoffrey de Charnis, to the astonishment of their Judges, seized the opportunity to publicly declare that they were innocent of the charges laid against them, that the confessions they had made to save their own lives were false and that the Order was pure and holy.

Unprepared for such an emergency and at a loss what course to pursue, the Commissioners adjourned without pronouncing any judgement. Subject only to ecclesiastical law the Knights were not amenable to any lay jurisdiction till sentenced by a spiritual Court, but, contemptuously indifferent to Papal sanction, King Philip did not wait. Calling his Counsellors together he forthwith passed sentence of death, and at dusk of the same day, March 18th, 1313, the Grand Master and his undaunted companion were taken by royal officers to an island in the Seine and, protesting their innocence to the last, slowly burnt to death.

It is said that in his final agony Molay summoned Pope and King to meet him within a year before that tribunal where judgment does not err. The story may be an ex post facto invention to be explained rather by a popular belief in the innocence of the victims than by any circumstance which actually occurred. But, be that as it may, in the events which followed many believed they beheld the retribution of divine wrath. In little more than a month the venal Pontiff, glutted with ill gotten gain wealth, was smitten by a foul disease and passed to his account; while on the 29th of the following November King Philip, still in middle life, was called from the enjoyment of his plunder to answer for the wrongs he had committed. He expired at Fontainbleau, the victim of a mysterious malady which baffled all medical skill.”
The History Of The Temple, London, J. Bruce Williamson, pages 65, 66

“The severance from Rome and the confiscation of the Monastic estates in England which were carried out by Henry VIII, were accompanied by one change which intimately concerned the two legal Societies of the Temple. The heavy hand of that masterful monarch fell with crushing force upon the Order of St. John of Jerusalem. During two hundred years in the Island of Rhodes, the Knights, against the Moslem Power, had valiantly upheld the cause of the Cross, but at last, in 1525, they were forced to capitulate to the conquering Turk. In their extremity their great services to Christendom were forgotten. Henry coveted their possessions, and in 1540 his subservient Parliament passed an Act confiscating the property of the Order in England. To give some colour of justification to the robbery this statute recited that the Knights of the Hospital of St. John had unnaturally, and contrary to the duty of their allegiances, sustained and maintained the usurped power and authority of the Bishop of Rome, the common enemy to the King and his realm; and that the Island of Rhodes, being lost, it was better that possessions of the Order should be employed and spent within the realm for the defence and surety thereof than used by such unnatural subjects who daily did privily and craftily attempt to subvert good and godly policy. Accordingly, it proceeded to make the wearing by the members of the Order upon their bodies of any sign, mark, or token, heretofore used or accustomed for the knowledge of the said religion, an offence against the Statute of Praomunire (16 R. II, c. 5); vested all the property of the Order real and personal in England and Ireland in the King and his successors, to use and employ at his own free will and pleasure under survey of the Court of Augmentations, and pronounced void and of none effect all privileges of sanctuary hitherto belonging to, used, or claimed in the mansion houses and other places commonly called St. John’s hold. Pensions were provided under the Act for various officers of the Order, “being the King’s true and faithfull subjects,….”
The History Of The Temple, London, J. Bruce Williamson, pages 143, 144

“The turning of the tide for Robert the Bruce, Scotland and the Knights Templar was the famous Battle of Bannockburn which took place on June 24, 1324…. On June 24 of 1324, Robert the Bruce of Scotland with approximately 6,000 Scots miraculously defeated 20,000 English soldiers. Exactly what took place has never really been recorded. It is believed by some that Bruce did it with the help of a special force of Knights Templar. After all, June 24 was also a special day to the Knights Templar; it was St. John’s Day….after a day of combat which had left both English and Scottish armies exhausted… Panic swept the English ranks. King Edward, together with 500 of his knights, abruptly fled the field. Demoralized, the English foot-soldiers promptly followed suit, and the withdrawal deteriorated quickly into a full-scale rout, the entire English army abandoning their supplies, their baggage, their money, their gold and silver plate, their arms, armour and equipment.”
netspace.net.au/~newdawn/41b.htm

“…the great King Robert the Bruce supported by the Knights Templar led by Sir William Sinclair with an army of only 9,000, defeated 38,000 Englishmen, the Scots facing heavy cavalry, archers and wave upon wave of staunch and brave Englishmen.

On that day, it was the crushing charge of the Knights Templar across rocky and almost impassable ground that turned the tide of victory. That far off day, almost seven hundred years ago, they won for Scotland her independence….Sir Robert Keith commanded the light cavalry whilst the Knights Templar were led by Sir William Sinclair.”
sinclair.quarterman.org/history/med/battleofbannockburn.htm

Chapter 4

Connection of our flag to the Pope, and the secret societies

[The below quotes are self explanatory, I’ve already dealt with the military nature of our flag in “The United States Is Still A British Colony”. I wouldd just point out, Britain use their uniforms as representations of their flag, we retained the British colors in our flag, the colors of Britain and the Pope.]

“The first Templar to be initiated in the United States was William Davis who was given thhe degrees of Excellent, Supe Excellent, Royal Arch, and Knight Templar by the St. Andrew’s Royal Arch Lodge on August 28th, 1769. Davis owned an apothecary business in Boston, but is perhaps most noted for his efforts at the Battle of Bunker Hill. Here it was Davis who suggested the “Barrel Defense” in which Barrels full of earth and stone were rolled down on the attacking units.

Of course other Revolutionary War notables would be invested with the honor of being Knights Templar, among them Paul Revere who was initiated on December 11th, 1769. Latterly, on May 14th 1770, Joseph Warren another Revolutionary War hero would add his name to the roster of early American Templars.”
templarhistory.com/Masonic.htm

“All Knights Templar are members of the world’s oldest fraternal organization known as “The Ancient Free And Accepted Masons” or more commonly known as “Masons”. However, not all Masons are Templars. Templary is but a part of the Masonic structure known as the “York Rite Of FreeMasonry”.”
knightstemplar.org

“….that of the Templars was purely military form the beginning, and on this point it can claim priority, despite the contrary assertions of the Hospitallers. The Templars followed a different monastic rule and wore a different habit — the white habit of the Cistercians, whose rule they followed, with a red cross, while the Hospitallers had the black mantle with a white cross. In war the knightly brothers wore above their armour a red surcoat with the white cross. Mutually emulous from the outset, they soon became rivals, and this rivalry had much to do with the rapid decline of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. In other respects the two orders held the same rank in Church and State, both being recognized as regular orders and endowed by the papacy with most extensive privileges, absolute independence of all spiritual and temporal authority save that of Rome, exemptions from tithes, with the right to have their own chapels, clergy and cemeteries….The name knights then prevailed over that of hospitallers. This character was accentuated by the fusion of the Hospitallers with the remaining Knights Templars subsequent to the suppression of the latter (1312). This fusion at the same time increased the wealth of the order, to which the pope assigned the property of the Templars in every country except Aragon and Portugal.” Catholic Encyclopedia

“All of the flags used in the colonies were military flags: “The flags used by the Colonies, before the Revolution, were chiefly those of the mother country, and though there were many other designs, they were nearly always combined with some feature of the British colors.” Fallows P. 3.

“The flag mentioned by Admiral Preble that was unfurled by General Washington at his camp at Cambridge is called the Grand Union Flag. It was the first federal flag to contain the thirteen stripes.

What is this Grand Union Flag? How is it composed? In the canton are the crosses of St. George and St. Andrew, taken, with their blue field, straight from the “meteor flag” of old England. But the greater part of this new flag is contained in the thirteen alternate stripes of red and white, symbolic of the thirteen leagued Colonies that stretch from New Hampshire to Georgia.” Abbott P. 10.

“The Grand Union flag was nothing more than an adaptation of the British red ensign, also known as the meteor flag. The only difference being that instead of being entirely red, it contained thirteen, horizontal red and white stripes, like the modern day American ensign.

The statement is made that it was designed by a committee appointed by Congress for that purpose; but the committee referred to was appointed to confer with General Washington and others for the purpose of devising means for organizing and maintaining an army, and neither does their official report nor correspondence show that they even considered the question of a flag. It was not long after their return to Philadelphia when, on January 1, 1776, there was hoisted over General Washington’s headquarters on Prospect Hill, at Somerville, near Cambridge, a flag having thirteen horizontal red and white stripes, and in the canton was the Union Jack, complying with the act of 1707, requiring that it be on all flags, banners, standards, and ensigns, whether used on land or at sea. It was merely the British marine flag of that day, with the solid red field divided by white ribbons so as to make thirteen red and white stripes, representing the thirteen revolting Colonies.

At that time the idea of independence was not generally seriously considered, so that the Union Jack in this flag showed the allegiance of the Colonies to their mother country. The flag itself was immediately appropriated by the Navy, for our continental fleet under Admiral Hopkins carried it as a national ensign early in February, if not in January, 1776; and although our Army used it over fortifications and barracks, they did not carry it in battle. With the growth of the idea of independence the colonists apparently conceived a dislike for the Union Jack in the flag, for after 1776 I have found no definite instance of its use by our Revolutionary patriots.” Thurston P. 8.

“Prior to the Declaration of Independence the different colonies retained the standards of the mother country, the ancient national flag of England, a white banner with the red cross of St. George, or the union flag of King James, a combination of the crosses of St. George and St. Andrew, designated as the King s colors.” California Constitution P. 5.

“On January 2, 1776, at Cambridge, in the presence of the military, with the assistance of his officers, and with appropriate ceremonies – in which the Franklin Committee were participants – General Washington, with his own hands, hoisted the newly accepted and newly made banner upon a towering and specially raised pine tree liberty pole; thus unfurling to the breeze and displaying to his army, the citizens of the vicinity, and the British forces in Boston, for the first time, the new and officially recognized Confederated Colonial Flag.

This was the first authoritative recognition of any standard having the color of Congressional action as a distinctively accepted flag to represent the confederated and co”perative union of the Colonies in their resistance of tyranny, injustice and oppression. And this was the first time in the history of the world when thirteen alternate red and white stripes was the foundation field of any national standard.”
Campbell P. 50.

“For nearly seventy years before the Revolutionary War broke out, the red ensign of Great Britain was generally adopted by the American colonies. It was called the Union flag, because in the upper corner next to the staff, which is called the canton, were the red cross of St. George, representing England; and the white cross, representing Scotland. The combination of these crosses which indicated a union character, was prescribed in 1707. While the colonists were not lacking in devotion to the British ensign in pre-revolutionary times, they nevertheless took occasion to place some particular device upon it applicable to the individual colony to which it belonged.”
Smith P. 10.

“The Declaration of Independence, at Philadelphia, on July 4, 1776, transformed the hitherto British Colonies into Independent States; changed the Colonial Congress into as nearly a Continental Legislature as under the circumstances it could become; and made John Hancock the representative [P.54] head of the new government. The Colonial Flag, of “Thirteen Stripes and British Union,” thus became the Standard of the thirteen newly nationalized and co”perating state governments.”
Campbell P. 53, 54.

“From 1707 on the Union Flag and the red ensign, or Meteor Flag, were borne by both merchant marine and the royal navy. On land they floated over the forts and followed the marching armies. They waved, too, over remote wilderness posts, and over the forest-threading brigades of the fur trader.

Thus the flag of Britain was the colonists flag, endeared to them by ancient association and by the endurance of common hazards and triumphs in uncounted campaigns and battles. Quaife P. 35.” A Treatise On the Jurisdictional Significance of the American Ensign

“With this practice of nations, then, before them, and evidently applied by them, viz.: that of applying some badge of distinction in use in their armies to their national banner, combined with that of indicating different portions of their armies by different colors for their flags; and of two nations, when uniting, adopting as a common ensign something to indicate their union, and still preserve the original banners (both as to devices and color), under which they had respectively achieved signal triumphs, especially as this last example was that of the mother country, we may expect to see the colonies carrying out this practice in their Union flag.

They were British colonies: and, as we have [P.69] shown, they used the British Union, but now, they were to distinguish their flag by its color from other British ensigns, preserve a trace of the colors under which they had previously fought with success, and, at the same time, represent this combination in some form peculiar to themselves.

The mode of distinction by color could not well be applied by the United Colonies in a single color, as the simpler and most striking were exhausted in application to British ensigns; but, if applied, must have been used in a complex form or combination of colors. This being the case, stripes of color would naturally be suggested as being striking, as enabling them to show the number and union of the colonies, as preserving the colors of the flags previously used by them; and also the badge of distinction, which, at the time of the adoption of this flag, marked the different grades in the un-uniformed army before Boston. Hence, probably, the name, The Great Union Flag, given to it by the writer in the Philadelphia Gazette, before quoted, doubtless Colonel Joseph Reed, inasmuch as this flag indicated, as respected the Colonies, precisely what the Grand Union Flag of Great Britain indicated respecting the mother country.” Hamilton P. 68, 69.

“This idea became an accomplished fact upon the inauguration of the new government, in 1789. Up to that date the Stars and Stripes formed the flag of the “Thirteen United States.” Since that time the “Red, White and Blue” has been the National Standard of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.] is precise and pointed, but it is very brief. The entire subject is contained in one sentence of the Journal of the Continental Congress, and it reads as follows:

“Resolved, That the flag of the thirteen United States be thirteen stripes alternate red and white; and that the union be thirteen stars, white, in a blue field, representing a new constellation.”

This resolution was passed by the Congress, at Philadelphia, on June 14, 1777. It was nearly a year after the Declaration of Independence, and a year and a half after the meeting of the Franklin Committee on the Colonial Flag, at Cambridge, that the English Union in the American flag was replaced by the blue field containing thirteen stars.” Campbell P. 55.

“We cannot escape more or less difficulty when we search for light as to who designed and manufactured the first flag bearing the Stars and Stripes. The popular story bestows the honor upon Mrs. Betsy Ross. It is alleged that Congress appointed a committee composed of General Washington, Robert Morris, and George Ross to design a flag. These gentlemen called upon Mrs. Ross in the month of May or June, 1776, and commissioned her to make the first flag with thirteen stars to harmonize with the thirteen stripes which had been placed on the standard raised at Cambridge six months previous.” Smith P. 45, 46.

“One of the most famous events involving the flag in colonial times was the case of John Endicott, who removed the cross from the flag because he believed it to be a symbol of popery, a sentiment felt by many in the colonies:

In November, 1634, complaint was recorded that John [P.15] Endicott had defaced the English ensign at Salem by cutting out with his sword a part of the red cross in the flag that hung before the governor s gate, declaring that it savored of popery, and he would have none of it. He was a member of the court assistants, but for this insult to the king’s colors he was reprimanded, removed from his office, and disqualified to hold any public office for the space of one year.

In this sentiment, that his violent act indicated, Endicott was not without sympathizers; and soon after some of the militia refused to march under the symbol that was to them idolatrous. After a grave controversy, which was not concluded until some time in December, 1635, when the military commissioners appointed colors for every company, leaving out the red cross in all of them, it was agreed that the king’s colors should fly from ships and be displayed over Castle Island, Boston, because the castle belonged to the king, and this flag continued in use there until the establishment of the commonwealth under Cromwell.

In 1651, when the English Parliament revived and adopted the old standard of the cross of St. George as the colors of England, the General Court of Massachusetts adopted this order: As the Court conceive the old English colors, now used by the Parliament, to be a necessary badge of distinction betwixt the English and other nations, in all places of the world, till the state of England alter the same, which we very much desire, we, being of the same nation, have therefore ordered that the captain of the Castle shall advance the aforesaid colors of England upon all necessary occasions.” Harrison P. 14, 15. A Treatise On the Jurisdictional Significance of the American Ensign.

Chapter 5

The bridge between the secular and the Biblical, the Knights Templar and Lawyers

[For years I have heard lawyers say the American Bar has no connection to the British Bar, and that their law license and admission to the Bar, in no way separates them from the public by way of privilege or title of nobility. This argument is utter folly. The courts try to give the impression that there is no privilege, but just on the face of reality, even through a court may let a defendant represent himself, you are denied access to the same information a lawyer has access to. You are denied witnesses when a lawyer would not be. Your paperwork is rejected for the most juvenile reasons, when the same mistake would be overlooked or fixed by a clerk. An American defending himself is held to a much higher standard, to a greater or lessor extent depending on the judge, because you are not a Bar member. Your case is dismissed with the slightest misstep, or possibly ruled frivolous and without merit, without explanation. Lawyers are brought up to the side bar to work out deals, or are given instruction or help, through advice by the judge. Non Bar members are kept from such side bars, so this claim that a lawyer has no privilege is a lie.

Today it’s almost impossible to get elected to a public office higher than dog catcher, unless you are a lawyer or a Mason.

Let’s look at some historical reality. Knights Templars worked and answered directly to the Pope, they were a direct link between the Pope and the king. They worked in concert with the kings of many Nations to carry out the Popes policies.

The property the Knights Templars held in England was by grant by the king, it was called the Temple, it had three courts, the inner, middle and outer, later in history the outer temple faded away, the temple has four inns, Inner Temple, Middle Temple, Lincoln’s Inn and Gray’s Inn. There was a gate built to enter the Inns/Courts, called the Bar, only these four Inn’s could admit someone to the Bar.

I have covered what happened to the Knights Templars during the inquisition, and that the Knights Hospitallers took their place, until they met a similar fate as the Templars. The Knights Hospitallers began renting the Inner Temple to a certain company of lawyers, and the Middle Temple to another company of lawyers. This was when the lawyers got their hold on the Inns of the Temple and the Bar, during the fourteenth century. In 1673 the lawyers purchased the Inner and Middle Temples for a gold cup weighing 200 ounces and filled with gold pieces, for this price they became absolute owners as tenets, forever. The lawyers have been in the Temple since 1312.

The “Bar” was created by the Knights Templars, not the lawyers, to cross the Bar and enter the Temple you had to get permission. When the lawyers bought their way into ownership of the Temple and received their grants, they just carried on the tradition that you could only gain admission to the “Bar” by the keepers of the Temple. The lawyers also continued the practices of the Knights Templars, as a secret society, this is why so many lawyers and judges are Masons, and secrecy is built into their profession. You will read in these quotes, that all Templars are Masons, but not all Masons are Templars. These Templars came to America as did the lawyers that had been taught, subjugated by the British Bar. These groups are directly responsible for the laws used before, during and after the formation of this county. They have almost exclusively run this county since its inception, holding every office in our country at one time or another. The American Bar that exists today came by these men, and they have the gall to say there is no connection; they are joined at the hip with the British Bar. So why do they make such foolish claims? I think most lawyers don’t know their own history, it was not necessary for them to be taught this by law schools, and may even have been detrimental. It’s not necessary for the lawyers to know the truth about the Bar, and the evil system it gave birth to. Once our legal and judicial system was put in place by our fore fathers, the intent of those that created the Bar gained a life of its own. To live on through the legal system, changed or modified in this Country by Congress as needed for the preservation of the major corporations and Trusts, that give life to this system.

It’s laughable that President Wilson and Senator Charles Lindbergh Sr. and others thought that by breaking up Standard oil and other major Corporate trusts, that they stopped the monopolies. All they did was make them smaller pieces and allowed trusts to change corporate names making it harder to track them. If not for lawyers and Masons controlling the federal and state governments, they would have had a better chance. However, the fact is, it was for the public’s consumption, just a show.

There is no way a lawyer can deny the American Bar is not part of the British Bar. Those loyal to the British Bar formed our legal system and were totally loyal to it, as a matter of oath. Also, their blind loyalty to the Bar was guaranteed by their source of income and privilege being derived by their membership in Bar. Guarantying the decedents of the legal profession continued in their blind loyalty to the Crown. The establishment of the Bar in the United States guaranteed enforcement of the king’s law, again which operates without the lawyers knowledge of the Bar’s hhistory, intent, or the secret societies it descended from.

Another point, who helped finance the Virginia Charter, or I’ll say a large portion of it, other than the Crown? The money barons “merchants” of London. Where were the Knights Templars, Masons and Lawyers based? London, directly under the control of the king and the Pope. Who set up our monitory system? Who set up our federal Reserve? Who set up our Social Security system?

Finally, who set up our legal system, to enforce this whole system? The merchants of London, the Bank of London and the secret societies they utilize. I hope you don’t have to fall off a cliff to know gravity works. Likewise, that the system we have today can be traced back to England. Not just historically as a metaphor, but directly, by creation and control. Names and faces have changed, but the Bar “legal system” set up to protect the king’s interest has not.]

“1781 British momentarily lose control of the sea to French which requires Cornwallis to surrender at Yorktown. According to British historians “this provides the new nation at its birth with a myth to sustain it.”

Masons installed Constitutional Government in America with “checks and balances” designed to make it permanently subservient to the Money Power of the Bank of England and its agents: Peabody, Morgan, Brown, Belmont, etc. America becomes “covert” colony of Britain.”
A-albionic Research Weekly Up-Date of 3-4-95 and 3-11-95

“The Temple has close historical associations with the American Republic. Five of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were members of the Middle Temple: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Hayward, Thomas McKean, Thomas Lynch and Arthur Middleton. Besides these, George Rutledge, William Livingstone, John Dickinson of Pennsylvania and Arthur Lee of Virginia and Payton Randolph, President of the Continental Congress of Philadelphia, were all members of the Inn.

….It all began with the Knights Templars who in the days of their power and pride formed a highly privileged order. They governed within their territory according to their own laws without interference from any outside authority. When the lawyers took over the property they inherited or assumed the like privilege and independence, a position that they have stoutly and resolutely and successfully maintained until the present day.”
Rambles in Old London, George W. Jacobs and Company, pages 89-90

“The attack upon the order which became general on the Continent was not shared in England, but when the dissolution was pronounced by the Council of Bienna in 1312, the properties passed to the Knights Hospitallers. In London however that Order did not take full possession of the Temple when the Knights Templars were disbanded. The three parts of the properties lying contiguous to each other were called the Inner, the Middle and the Outer Temple, according to the relation of each to the City. The Knights Hospitallers were allowed to occupy the Inner, which included the more sacred parts. The Outer was granted by the King to the Bishop of Exeter and was eventually acquired by Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, and with Essex House became the seat of that ill-fated nobleman. There he surrendered to the officers of Elizabeth and thence he proceeded to his trial and execution. The properties continued in private hands and so the Outer extending from the Strand to the River along both sides of Essex street. Within a few years of their occupation of the Inner Temple the Knights Hospitallers were in possession of the Middle as well and we find them renting parts of the Inner to a certain company of lawyers, and the Middle to another company of lawyers, the rent paid in each instance being ten pounds annually. It was therefore early in the fourteenth century that the lawyers got their first footing in the temple and from the first they appear to have formed two distinct societies, on in the Inner Temple and the other in the Middle Temple.”
Rambles in Old London, George W. Jacobs and Company, pages 78-79

“The Temple has not been spared the calamities that have been visited upon London. One occurred during the peasants’ revolt in 1381 under Wat Tyler. The peasants who regarded the lawyers with special aversion, moved in a mob to the Temple with the avowed purpose of hanging its inhabitants. The lawyers having got wind of the plan, had business elsewhere on that day. The rebels however plundered the houses, some of which they destroyed, and made a bonfire of all books and records.

Till the dissolution, the Knights Hospitallers remained the owners of the Temple, receiving rents from the two societies of lawyers. That Order was dissolved by Henry VIII, who confiscated the property and allowed the lawyers to remain as tenants of the Crown at an annual rental of ten pounds a year for each of the two societies. It seems that Henry had a scheme for turning out the lawyers and converting the Temple into some use of his own devising, but it also seems that the lawyers were too smart even for Henry and managed somehow to retain the properties at the same rent that they had been paying for over two hundred years, the only difference being that the Crown became their landlord.

In 1608 James the First made an effort to deprive the lawyers of the premises by effecting a sale. Again they scored, this time by presenting the King with a gold cup weighing two hundred ounces filled with gold pieces in exchange for a charter granting them the Temple FOREVER at the old annual rental of ten pounds a year for each Society. In 1673 however the two Societies together purchased these rents from Charles II and became the absolute owners forever, the one of the Inner Temple and the other of the Middle Temple.

Thus the Temple premises, the heritage of an ancient order of chivalry identified with the Crusades, became the permanent property of the lawyers who have been in continuous occupation since 1412, and whose present title is base on the rental of 10 pounds which each of the two societies paid at that time for its share as tenant. In no instance does the persistence of custom in the City of London show to better advantage, with deeper meaning or with greater honour thaan in this Temple of Law wher students come from all over the British Empire to gain admission to the Bar….

Always there have been four Inns of Court: the Middle Temple, the Inner Temple, Lincoln’s Inn and Gray’s Inn, the last two lying outside the Temple precincts in Holborn….They are the only power in England that can admit to the Bar.”
Rambles in Old London, George W. Jacobs and Company, pages 80-82

“I know of no event that presaged the founding of the Empire overseas like the arrival of the Golden Hinde at London. It was the most colossal and most daring propaganda that ever encompassed the earth.

From that time on the Londoners developed and fostered the colonizing spirit and from the time that Englishmen got a foothold in America the plantations were nourished and powerfully supported by London merchants. Virginia was founded by the City of London and the City Companies together….Among the leaders in the New World were men learned in the law who had lived at the Inns of Court and sat with the Benchers in the Temple. Not the law alone but the customs, the traditions, the faiths of London penetrated the Thirteen Colonies.

….Whatever difference of opinion there might have been in the colonies about the policies of the government there was none in London. Right or wrong these policies were opposed by Londoners from the beginning. The Lord Mayor and Aldermen, as spokesmen for the City, sent on remonstrance after another to the King on the throne till, incensed at their persistence, he informed their representative in Parliament that he would receive on the throne no more communications from the Lord Mayor. This was a denial of one of London’s ancient rights. The Lord Mayor promptly reminded him that London’s right of making representations to the King on the throne had never been challenged. The King acknowledged the right. The Lord Mayor and Aldermen continued to send their remonstrances against the colonial policy of government. They were no perfunctory warnings that the City sent to the Throne.”
Rambles in Old London, George W. Jacobs and Company, pages 94-96

“….The Royal Palace and the seat of the Carmelite Brothers lay therefore between Ludgate and the Temple, and between Fleet Street and the Thames. Lying outside the wall but inside the City, they had Temple Bar as an outer protection. Temple Bar is at least as old as the Temple whence it derived the name by which it has been known to history.”
Rambles in Old London, George W. Jacobs and Company, page 101

Conclusion

[There has been a major lie concerning the Catholic Church. That being, the Catholic Church’s claim that Peter was the first Pope.

Just briefly, Peter was not present in Rome at the time the first Church was started, Paul was. Also, the Catholic Church did not start listing Peter as the first Pope, until a few hundred years after Paul started the first Church in Rome. Peter did not come to Rome until after Paul’s death. Had Peter visited Rome while Paul was in prison, Paul would have mentioned him in his letters, as a matter of protocol. The movements concerning the Apostle Paul and the Apostle Peter were closely tracked and recorded in the Bible. Remember, Peter was called and chosen to evangelize the Jews, not the Gentiles.

What’s the significance? This claim gave the Catholic Church, through this heresy, moral authority and the base for their power, and acceptance as “the” Christian religion. This was made secure when the Roman Emperor Constantine made Catholicism the official religion of the Roman Empire. This is not an attack on the Catholic people; they are unaware of this, and unaware of being unaware. However, it is incumbent on them once they learn the truth, to separate themselves from this heresy. Jesus said: Rev 18:4 “And I heard another voice from Heaven, saying, Come out of her, My people, that you may not be partakers of her sins, and that you may not receive of her plagues.” The lie “misrepresentation” by the Popes claiming they were the chosen lineage by Jesus Christ, selected by Jesus Christ to be the Vicar, in succession of Peter, helped them perpetrate a fraud on the World. It gave them access to the governments of the World, as a representative of the Roman Empire, with the largest military power on Earth at that time, busy conquering the World. Likewise, Rome used the Catholic Church, through the Church’s coercive power, to control the kings of the Earth. Due to their fraud and deception as an imposter, as the Church of Jesus Christ, they gained control of the governments of many Nations. The Catholic Church; let me make this clear, I’m talking about the hierarchy, not those in the congregations. The Catholic Church as an institution is lead by Satan, not Jesus Christ. I can hear people say: “what did you say”? Don’t drop your coffee cup, let me explain. It goes without saying this statement will be attacked. It would of course be easier not to deal with this subject, and save me from what I know will be angry comments by loyal Catholics. I’m sorry to say this because of the pain I know it will cause, but all you have to do is look at the facts of history to know this is true.

To give a few examples, the 1213 Charter, where King John gave all of his holdings to the Pope, based on the fraud and misrepresentation by Pope Innocent III, the supposed moral leader of the Catholic Church. This truth would have excluded him from being a party to this Charter, had this truth been known. King John would not have given his holdings to the Pope if he had known the Pope was not a representative of God Almighty, or vicar of Jesus Christ, but instead an imposter. The king surrendered his holdings under duress and threat of eternal damnation, by the Pope, the alleged appointed vicar of Jesus Christ. This fact voids the 1213 Charter, and all others signed by the Pope, or any representative of the Vatican acting as the agent of Jesus Christ, brought about by the authority acquired by the Pope, as a result of the Papacy’s claim to be the Vicars of Jesus Christ.

The Pope’s rejection not once but twice, of the 1215 Magna Charta, as a party “witness” to the document, as a result of his being a party to the 1213 Charter, is without any legal standing. However, I have said the document was not a legal document because king John was forced under duress, by threat of death to sign the document. It would have been legal if the Barons threat had been carried out, removing the monarch and his heirs, instituting a new government, which would make the Magna Charta redundant, because they could have put in place the laws of their choosing.

Another proof as to who the Catholic Church “Pope” answers to, is the recent events exposing the Catholic Church for what it is. The hundreds of homosexual priests preying on young boys, as a matter of policy being protected by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church appointed these priests with the common knowledge homosexual priests were being admitted to the Church. If it were not Church policy and just an isolated event occurring now and then, with swift defrocking of the reprobate priests, they might could argue against their being a satanic Church. This however, is far from the case and proves the Catholic Church is an arm of Satan. Jesus Christ said: “you are either for me or against me.” There are only two sides, Good “Jesus Christ” vs. Evil “Satan”. Jesus Christ declared homosexuality is an abomination. Those that practice it are turned over to a reprobate mind. The priest of the Catholic Church would reject this totally and say I was full of hate, and not mindful or tolerant of others feelings, and was not a true Christian because I showed no love or mercy, never mind what Jesus Christ Word says on the subject. Which, thank you, proves my point, as to who these Catholic priests serve. Have you noticed how the priest and Catholic hierarchy never bring up verses that condemn the homosexual behavior. Jesus Christ made it clear, homosexuality is evil and is never condoned in His Word and says those that practice it will be barred from entering the Kingdom of Heaven. I’m not saying that a homosexual can’t be saved, quite the contrary, but it is rare. Jesus Christ said, Satan comes as an angel of light, an imposter. Am I calling the Pope the anti-Christ? No, but his actions expose the Catholic Church for what it is, also revealed in Revelation 17, as he that was, and is not, but yet is. Look at the millions of people killed in wars started by the Pope, look at all the people tortured by the Catholic Church during the inquisition, not to mention the betrayal I’ve already written about. Remember what Jesus Christ said: “Satan comes to kill, steal and destroy.” The child “Catholic Church” has always immolated its father “Satan”. Another scripture to remember: 1 Peter 5:8, John 10:10.

I’m sorry for the pain this will cause, but the truth has to be told. The World has lived under this illusion long enough. I know we are far removed from the middle ages, however the World we live into day is a direct result of the Papacy’s false claims as the Vicars of Jesus Christ. You cannot, I repeat, cannot separate the spiritual aspect of the Papacy’s effect on History. The effects of the Papacy has been on secular governments, which has shaped the whole of World history. The Catholic Church a religious institution, brought with it the Roman Empire. Why do I say that? It’s a matter of history, the Emperor Constantine after making the Catholic religion the official religion of Rome, began issuing edicts making them part of the Catholic Church. The effect was, the Priests of the Catholic Church became ambassadors of Rome. Just as when the Catholic priests went into England, many laws of Rome were interwoven into English common law. So the Catholic Church has effected in a major way the whole of the civilized World, secular and religious, they cannot be separated. So the issue of the Pope’s false claim as Vicar, is directly responsible for the World in which we live. You can argue whether or not that is good or bad, or if you would want to change the status quo, that is not the issue. The fact is the Papacy’s policies are totally against freedom, personal rights, or any government that is not a monarchy, this is a matter of history and Treaty. In conclusion, KNOWLEDGE IS FREEDOM.

A Biblical Constitution A Scriptural Replacement for Secular Government -Revisited

February 25, 2016

By Ted R. Weiland

Preface
The United States Constitutional Republic was destined to fall from its inception. This is borne out in the following two passages:
And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. (Matthew 7:26-27)
[E]very kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. (Matthew 12:25)
The house known as the Constitutional Republic was not built upon the rock of Yahweh’s1 word, but instead upon Enlightenment and Masonic concepts.2 It began and continues as a divided house:
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord….
(2 Corinthians 6:14-17)
The day is therefore approaching when the Republic’s cup of iniquity will be full3 and Yahweh’s longsuffering is exhausted. At that time, the Republic will be subjected to His judgment. Like all nations before her built on sand, she will cease to exist. The question that remains is whether that generation’s Christians will be prepared to build upon her ruins. If not, another ungodly nation will fill the void until finally a future generation of our posterity are prepared to erect a government and society upon Yahweh’s righteousness as expressed in His triune moral law (His commandments, statutes, and judgments).4
It is therefore incumbent upon this and all intervening generations of Christians to do everything in their power to help prepare for that future generation of Christians to do it right(eous) the next time.
The following biblical replacement for the U.S. Constitution’s Preamble and first three Articles is but one attempt to that end. I submit it as only a suggested foundational charter for the implementation of Yahweh’s Constitution codified in His moral laws. It is far from a perfect or complete document.5 It can and should be improved upon. It is my hope that it will serve to inspire others to do just that. Much of what will have to be accomplished when the time arrives for implementation will rest upon those given the responsibility of enacting Yahweh’s law as the standard for their society.
Ted R. Weiland

__________________________
1. YHWH, the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, is most often pronounced Yahweh. It is the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible and was inspired to appear nearly 7,000 times in the Old Testament. Regrettably, it was unlawfully deleted by the English translators. In obedience to the Third Commandment and the Scriptures that charge us to proclaim, swear by, praise, extol, call upon, bless, glorify, and hold fast to His name, we have chosen to memorialize His name here in this document and in our lives. For a more thorough explanation concerning important reasons for using the sacred name of God, see Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain, the third booklet in a series of booklets on each of the Ten Commandments and their respective statutes and judgments.
2. Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective
3. “And he [Yahweh] said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years…. But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites [the land of whom Israel was to procure] is not yet full.” (Genesis 15:13-16)
4. Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant
5. Our series of ten booklets on each of the Ten Commandments and their respective statutes and judgments should also prove helpful in implementing and adjudicating Yahweh’s moral law in our personal and family lives now and as communities in the future.

Preamble
We the people of Almighty God—known biblically by His memorial name Yahweh,1 the one and only Sovereign over all creation2—humbly submit ourselves as individuals, families, churches, and communities to His rule as Judge, Lawgiver, and King.3
We furthermore acknowledge Jesus Christ’s supremacy as King of kings and Lord of lords over ourselves and all nations.4 We recognize the Holy Spirit as our guide unto all truth.5
Because all power and authority reside with Him,6 we acknowledge that liberty, justice, domestic tranquility, and general welfare for ourselves and our posterity can only be achieved as communities by His perfect law and righteous judgments.7
We hereby freely covenant together as His humble servants, bought and paid for by the blood of Christ,8 into a civil body politic for the express purpose of establishing a government of, by, and for Him. This is to be accomplished by implementing His commandments, statutes, and judgments as the only standard for ordering our lives both individually and communally.9 We furthermore look to Him for wisdom, assistance, and protection in conducting His affairs here on earth as it is in heaven.10
__________________________
1. “[Y]ahweh God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.” (Exodus 3:15)
2. “[Yahweh] who is the blessed and only Potentate [Sovereign, NASB], the King of kings, and Lord of lords.” (1 Timothy 6:15)
3. “For Yahweh is our judge, Yahweh is our lawgiver, Yahweh is our king; he will save us.” (Isaiah 33:22)
4. “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever….” (Isaiah 9:6-7)
“And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power [authority, NASB] is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” (Matthew 28:18)
5. “[T]he Spirit of truth … will guide you into all truth….” (John 16:13)
6. “God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this; that power belongeth unto God.”
(Psalm 62:11)
“To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.” (Jude 1:25)
7. “The law of Yahweh is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of Yahweh is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of Yahweh are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of Yahweh is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of Yahweh is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of Yahweh are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward.” (Psalm 19:7-11)
8. “For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.” (1 Corinthians 6:20)
“Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.” (1 Corinthians 7:23)
9. “Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as Yahweh my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land…. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as Yahweh our God is in all things that we call upon him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?” (Deuteronomy 4:5-8)
10. “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” (Matthew 6:10)
“But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.” (Matthew 6:33)

Article 1
All executive authority resides in Almighty God and is, therefore, vested in Almighty God by Almighty God.
Isaiah 33:22 declares Yahweh is King.1 He has never abdicated His throne.2 He is as much King now as He was at creation3 and at the time Isaiah affirmed His sovereignty. As perpetual King, the kingdom He rules over is also perpetual.4
When, in 1 Samuel 8, the Israelites sought an earthly king, Yahweh gave them the desires of their hearts. Nevertheless, they were punished for seeking a covering other than His5 and paid a dear price for their lack of faith in and fidelity to Him.6
We therefore do not seek an earthly king (president or monarch) to reside over kingdom affairs.7 In the tradition of our 17th-century Christian American forebears, we commit ourselves to Yahweh alone as our sovereign.8
__________________________
1. “For Yahweh is our judge, Yahweh is our lawgiver, Yahweh is our king….” (Isaiah 33:22)
2. “…Yahweh sitteth King for ever.” (Psalm 29:10)
“But Yahweh is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king….”
(Jeremiah 10:10)
“Behold, the days come, saith Yahweh, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, Yahweh our righteousness.” (Jeremiah 23:5-6)
“Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.” (1 Timothy 1:17)
3. “The earth is Yahweh’s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods.” (Psalm 24:1-2)
4. “Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations.” (Psalm 145:13)
“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever….” (Isaiah 9:6-7)
“To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.” (Jude 1:25)
5. “Woe to the rebellious children, saith Yahweh, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover with a covering,* but not of my spirit, that they may add sin to sin.” (Isaiah 30:1)
*The Hebrew word nacak, translated “covering,” is indicative of anointing a king (Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance).
6. 1 Samuel 8; 1 Samuel 10:17-19; Hosea 13:9-11
7. “…[Yahweh] who is the blessed and only Potentate [Sovereign, NASB], the King of kings, and Lord of lords.” (1 Timothy 6:15)
8. “God was their King; and they regarded him as truly and literally so….” William Holmes McGuffey, McGuffey’s Sixth Eclectic Reader (New York, NY: American Book Company, 1879) p. 225.

Article 2
Section 1. All legislative authority resides in Almighty God and is, therefore, vested in Almighty God by Almighty God.
Isaiah 33:22 and James 4:12 declare Yahweh is the exclusive legislator.1 There are no others. Anyone who claims the title of legislator (particularly when his “laws”—whether commandments, statutes, or judgments—are inconsonant with Yahweh’s) is a usurper and is perpetuating the same anarchy initiated by Adam and Eve. Anarchy is a state of society without government or law. Because all legitimate law originates with Yahweh, any “legislation” not in accord with His amounts to an act of treason against God Almighty and, therefore, His kingdom.
Yahweh is the only lawgiver because as Creator and Sovereign He is the only one with the authority to determine what is good and what is evil. This is true, not because we recognize it as such, but because it is His innate right as the only ever living I am that I am.2
Because there is only one true God,3 there is only one standard for morality. As the source of morality, Yahweh is the author of all true law and, therefore, holds the monopoly on legislation. Because legislation enacts morality, morality and legislation are indivisible.
Any legislation antithetical to Yahweh’s is tantamount to calling good evil and evil good.4 It amounts to a usurpation of His divine jurisdiction. When man rejects Yahweh’s standard of morality, he invariably makes legal what God has made unlawful and illegal what He has made lawful, making a mockery of His authority. Case in point: Any government that does not recognize Yahweh’s exclusive legislative authority.
His triune moral law cannot be improved upon because it is perfect.5 It is unlawful for man to amend or repeal it in whole or in part.6 Because Yahweh’s moral law is perfect, any endeavor to improve upon it is an attempt to dethrone Yahweh and commandeer His throne.
Section 2. Because it is impossible for man to make law, he is either a usurper or merely an administrator of Yahweh’s law. Administrators (not to be confused with judges) are law finders, not lawmakers. An administrator’s responsibility is to assist in implementing Yahweh’s law (government) here on earth at all levels of society—individually, domestically, and civilly. Every Christian man should be an administrator of Yahweh’s law on at least the first two levels.
Administrators represent Yahweh, not the people or any one person. It is their duty to search out the law of Yahweh as it applies to any particular situation, and then to teach and implement the law(s) appropriate to that situation or need.7
This does not mean supplementary stipulations cannot be implemented, provided they are consonant with Yahweh’s prescribed law. For example, a father, who governs his family under God’s authority and by His law has the liberty to implement house rules, such as hygienic and household chores. The same is true on all other levels of society.
Today’s technology did not exist when Moses codified Yahweh’s moral laws. Therefore, additional stipulations are required for these new conditions under and in accord with God’s case laws (His statutes and judgments). Provided such regulations do not conflict with Yahweh’s moral law, they are perfectly acceptable. Biblical precedents are found in Nehemiah’s lots,8 Jeremiah’s land deeds,9 Rachab’s patriarchal requisites,10 and Mordechai’s Purim celebration,11 none of which are directly provided for in the commandments or statutes.
Section 3. Civil administrators shall be composed of biblically qualified men12 (thirty years to fifty years of age13), who will remain such so long as they aspire to the position,14 and provided they remain biblically qualified.
Civil administrators are to be nominated by men from their immediate community who can personally attest to the nominees’ biblical qualifications.15 When there are more candidates than positions, nominees shall be elected by Yahweh via casting lots.16
The number of administrators shall be determined by each and every local community, as their needs require. Communities might be well-advised to consult the numerical model for judges in Exodus 18 as a guide for administrators as well—that is, one administrator for every ten families.17
Civil administrators (like judges) are to be compensated for their time and services from tithes and freewill offerings.18
Section 4. If, at any point during his tenure, a civil administrator becomes biblically unqualified, it is then incumbent upon the men of his community to remove him from office (and have him prosecuted if his offense so dictates), lest the community become complicit in any misuse of his position as administrator.19
__________________________

1. “For Yahweh is our judge, Yahweh is our lawgiver, Yahweh is our king….” (Isaiah 33:22)
“There is [only, NASB] one lawgiver….” (James 4:12)
2. “And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.” (Exodus 3:14)
3. “For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”
(1 Corinthians 8:5-6)
4. “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! …because they have cast away the law of Yahweh of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.” (Isaiah 5:20, 24)
5. “The law of Yahweh is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of Yahweh is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of Yahweh are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of Yahweh is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of Yahweh is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of Yahweh are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward.” (Psalm 19:7-11)
6. “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Yahweh your God which I command you.” (Deuteronomy 4:2)
7. “For Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the law of Yahweh, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments.” (Ezra 7:10)
“And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood … [and] opened the book in the sight of all the people…. Also … Levites, caused the people to understand the law…. So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.” (Nehemiah 8:4-8)
8. Nehemiah 10:34
9. Jeremiah 32:9-14
10. Jeremiah 35:5-19
11. Esther 9
12. “[T]hou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness….” (Exodus 18:21)
“Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and … make them rulers over you.” (Deuteronomy 1:13)
“Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom Yahweh thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. But he shall not multiply horses to himself…. Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. …he shall write him a copy of this law in a book…. And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear Yahweh his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them: That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left.” (Deuteronomy 17:15-20)
“The God of Israel said … He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. And he shall be as a light of the morning, when the sun riseth, even a morning without clouds; as the tender grass springing out of the earth by clear shining after rain.” (2 Samuel 23:3-4)
“[Jehoshaphat] said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for Yahweh, who is with you in the judgment. Wherefore now let the fear of Yahweh be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with Yahweh our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts. …Thus shall ye do in the fear of Yahweh, faithfully, and with a perfect heart.”
(2 Chronicles 19:6-9)
“[T]heir nobles shall be of themselves, and their governor shall proceed from the midst of them….” (Jeremiah 30:21)
“Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.” (Acts 6:3)
“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil…. For he is the minister of God to thee for good … he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” (Romans 13:3-4)
See also 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9.
13. “From thirty years old and upward even unto fifty years old shalt thou number them, every one that entereth into the service, to do the work of the tabernacle of the congregation.” (Numbers 4:30)
14. “This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop [elder or overseerer], he desireth a good work.” (1 Timothy 3:1)
“The elders which are among you I exhort…. Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.” (1 Peter 5:1-3)
15. “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.” (Exodus 18:2l)
“Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you…. So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes.” (Deuteronomy 1:13-15)
“Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.” (Acts 6:3)
16. “Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom Yahweh thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.” (Deuteronomy 17:15)
“And when Samuel had caused all the tribes of Israel to come near, the tribe of Benjamin was taken [by lot] … the family of Matri was taken, and Saul the son of Kish was taken…. And Samuel said to all the people, See ye him whom Yahweh hath chosen….”
(1 Samuel 10:20-24)
“The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of Yahweh.” (Proverbs 16:33)
“The lot causeth contentions to cease, and parteth between the mighty.” (Proverbs 18:18)
“And they appointed [put forward, NASB] two, Joseph called Barsabas…. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen…. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.” (Acts 1:23-26)
17. “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.” (Exodus 18:21)
18. “…give the portion of the priests and the Levites, that they might be encouraged in [devote themselves to, NASB] the law of Yahweh.” (2 Chronicles 31:4)
“…the labourer is worthy of his hire….” (Luke 10:7)
“For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute [tax, NASB] to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.”
(Romans 13:6-7)
“If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal [material, NASB] things?…. Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach [or minister] the gospel should live of the gospel. (1 Corinthians 9:11-14)
“Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.” (1 Timothy 5:17-18)
19. “Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thus share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin.” (1 Timothy 5:22, NASB)
See also 1 Samuel 14:26-45 and 1 Chronicles 21:1-14.

Article 3
Section 1. All judicial authority resides in Almighty God and is, therefore, vested in Almighty God by Almighty God.
Isaiah 33:22 declares Yahweh is King, Lawgiver, and Judge.1 His sovereignty is inherent in and over all three branches of government. Consequently, any civil judgment not congruent with His perfect law and altogether righteous judgments2 amounts to judicial usurpation and, as such, an act of sedition against Yahweh’s sovereignty.3
Section 2. All viable, dynamic law consists of three integral components: commandments, statutes, and judgments.4 The commandments express the primal, foundational law. The statutes expound upon the commandments. And the judgments enforce the commandments and their respective statutes. Without any one of these three components, the law is crippled. A commandment or statute without a judgment becomes merely good advice.
Whoever defines criminal behavior and dispenses judgments holds dominion in society. Yahweh intends for the judgments to be in the hands of His people.5
Section 3. Yahweh’s judicial order is a graduated system—a magistrate appellate system rather than a litigant appellate system. Difficult cases in lower courts are to be turned over to higher judges (over fifties, hundreds, and thousands)6 for adjudication.
Yahweh’s morality as expressed in His triune law is infallible and therefore immutable. His standard is inalterable and therefore does not change over time or with newly appointed judges. Therefore, except in cases where a higher court discerns a demonstrable error in decision or judgment, a lower court’s decision or judgment cannot be overturned by a higher court. Intervention by a higher court (unless requested by a lower court) is otherwise not allowed.
After a verdict has been rendered, compelling new evidence can be cause for a reversal or a new trial.7
Because delayed judgment diminishes the deterrent effect, all judgments are to be carried out expeditiously.8
Section 4. There is nothing in the Bible that resembles a jury system drawn from the general population. Even with jury nullification (a juror’s right to judge a law as unjust, oppressive, or inapplicable to any particular case) in force, juries invariably render decisions based upon each jury’s collective standard of morality or immorality. Juries are notoriously fickle and produce, at best, erratic justice.
Without Yahweh’s law as the standard, jury decisions are based upon the capricious morality of its members and are just as likely (perhaps even more so) to render bad decisions as they are good decisions. Most people lack the independence and resolution to resist the will of a majority or the presiding judge.9 Juries drawn from the general population put juridical determinations in the hands of an unpredictable and unequally yoked public,10 the majority of whom are likely to be non-Christian.11
Juries drawn from the general population are unlikely to be astute in Yahweh’s law and, therefore, no more apt to render justice than a corrupt judge. Moreover, unlike a corrupt judge who can be removed from his bench, there is no recourse for inept juries.
Section 5. The Bible provides for judges, officers, and magistrates.12
Judges shall be composed of biblically qualified men,13 who will remain in office as long as they aspire to the position,14 are mentally capable, and remain biblically qualified.
Judges must rule in the fear of Yahweh and on His behalf instead of the state or any one race, class, gender, or person. This can only be accomplished when judges’ rulings are based exclusively upon Yahweh’s never-changing morality as reflected in His commandments, statutes, and judgments.15
At the same time, judges must be impartial in their decisions, regardless race, class, gender, or person.16
Section 6. Judges are to be nominated by men from their immediate community who can personally attest to the nominees’ Biblical qualifications.17 When there are more candidates than positions, nominees shall be elected by Yahweh via casting lots.18
The number of judges per local community shall be determined by the numeration provided in Exodus 18.19 With one lower judge for every ten families, speedy trials should prevail.
Judges are to be compensated for their time and services from tithes and freewill offerings.20
Section 7. If during his tenure a judge becomes biblically unqualified, the men of his community must remove him from his bench (and have him prosecuted if his offense so dictates), lest the community become complicit in any misuse of his position as judge.21
If a judge knowingly rules on behalf of a criminal (as the result of being bribed or for any other reason), he is to be impeached and then punished with the same judgment the guilty party would otherwise have incurred.22
Section 8. Depending upon the nature of the crime, Yahweh’s civil laws call for five principal modes of punishment:
1) The death penalty23

2) Retribution (an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, etc.), with penalties24

3) Restitution, with penalties25

4) Indentured servitude26

5) Floggings27
Except for short-term, pre-trial incarcerations,28 prisons (which are a tax burden upon law-abiding citizens) are superfluous. Bail is likewise redundant. It is also unbiblical.29
The absence of prisons necessitates speedy trials and expeditious punishment.
Testimony is required of all witnesses, including the accused30 and his relatives.31
In addition to the required restitution (two to five times, depending upon the nature of the crime), anyone discovered attempting to cover up his crime must pay an additional twenty percent to his victim.32
Except for two instances, Yahweh’s law does not provide for fines to be paid to the state or government.33 In all other instances, monetary remuneration in the form of fines or penalties is to be paid to the injured party or the relatives of the deceased.34
No one is liable unless injury or damage has occurred to another person or his property. The state cannot be a damaged party. Consequently, there is no liability for such things as speeding or other victimless “crimes.” In instances where death, injury, or damaged property results from reckless negligence (speeding, etc.), liability will be assessed according to Yahweh’s prescribed judgments.
The designation “minor” is a man-made exception. Judgments are to be meted out the same regardless the age or sex of the offender.
Following conviction, anyone (regardless of age, sex, or mental capacity) found guilty of premeditated murder must be put to death.35
For cases other than premeditated murder (including cases requiring an eye for an eye, etc.), monetary indemnity is allowable, at the discretion of the victim’s next of kin.36
Section 9. Stoning is the principle means for execution,37 for the following reasons:
1) Because of its potent deterrent effect.38

2) Because it provides the means for the next of kin (blood avenger),39 witnesses,40 and the community41 to participate in the execution.
The harsher the punishment, the greater the deterrent. People are less likely to commit felonies when the maximum penalty is mandatory for unrepentant criminals. This is especially true if it is compulsory for the entire community to attend and participate in public executions.
When stones are not accessible, firing squads (which also allows for community participation) may be used in substitution of stoning.42
Section 10. Because Yahweh is sovereign over His law order and because judges represent Him, contempt of court (refusal to comply with a judge’s biblical verdict or order) is contempt of God and His law. Contempt of court is, therefore, a capital crime.43 Because contempt of court is a capital crime, noncompliance in non-capital cases will be virtually unheard of.
Section 11. The following six safeguards are to be implemented in all cases. They should all but eliminate false testimony and protect the integrity of the court and its decisions:
1) Defendants are to be given the opportunity to defend themselves against their accusers.44

2) Litigants are required to take self-maledictory oaths by which they call Yahweh to curse them if their testimony is false.45 In some cases, perjury can be considered a Third Commandment infraction and, as such, incur the death penalty.

3) Witnesses (or anyone with pertinent information) to a crime are required to testify, regardless whether they’re married or related to a litigant.46

4) Convictions require two or more witnesses.47

5) Witnesses are required to participate in the execution or flogging of those whom they help convict.48

6) False witnesses are to suffer the same punishment they intend for their victims.49
Section 12. Trials are to be open to the public in easily accessible locations.50 Public trials place judges under the jurisdiction and oversight of the community that nominated them. This helps curb temptation for judicial abuse.
Executions, retributions, and floggings are likewise to be held in public view.51 The community (including sojourning strangers) against which the crime was committed is required to attend and participate in the execution or flogging of convicted criminals.52
Executions are a covenantal community responsibility. The Bible knows nothing of private executions or tax-paid professional executioners, both of which impersonalize crime and diminish the deterrent effect of the death penalty.
Stone piles covering executed criminals are to be left intact in open sight, in order to accentuate and perpetuate the deterrent effect.53
Section 13. Lex talionis, or the law of retribution (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, etc.54), mandates equitable retribution and restricts the extent of retaliation in order to keep the punishment proportional to the crime.
Lex talionis is especially important for its potent deterrent effect upon non-capital criminals.55
The inherent liabilities in the “an eye for an eye…” judgment promotes personal responsibility for one’s actions, which, in turn, eliminates the need for insurance companies and encroaching government agencies such as OSHA and the FDA.
Lex talionis also substantially reduces both premeditated crime and careless disregard for the lives and property of others.
Monetary remuneration may be substituted for lex talionis. The amount is to be determined by the victim or next of kin.56
Retribution is required only if the victim demands it, not the state.
In addition to “an eye for an eye…,” the perpetrator of an injury upon another person is also liable for any medical expenses and/or loss of income57 incurred as a consequence of intentional harm or reckless negligence.58 This stipulation is not to include remuneration for any supposed or real pain, suffering, embarrassment, or indignity suffered at the hands of someone else.
__________________________

1. “For Yahweh is our judge, Yahweh is our lawgiver, Yahweh is our king….” (Isaiah 33:22)
2. “The law of Yahweh is perfect…. The statutes of Yahweh are right … the commandment of Yahweh is pure … the judgments of Yahweh are true and righteous altogether.”
(Psalm 19:7-9)
3. “[You have] … changed my judgments into wickedness … for they have refused my judgments and my statutes, they have not walked in them. Therefore thus saith the Lord Yahweh; Because ye … have not walked in my statutes, neither have kept my judgments … behold, I, even I, am against thee, and will execute judgments in the midst of thee in the sight of the nations.” (Ezekiel 5:6-8)
“Her princes within her are roaring lions; her judges are evening wolves … they have done violence to the law.” (Zephaniah 3:3-4)
4. “And Yahweh … declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments…. And Yahweh commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them….” (Deuteronomy 4:12-14)
5. “[J]udgment shall return unto righteousness: and all the upright in heart shall follow it. Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? Or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?” (Psalm 94:15-16)
“Let … a twoedged sword [be] in their hand; to execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people; to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; to execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye Yah.” (Psalm 149:6-9)
“The evil bow before the good; and the wicked at the gates [where court was convened] of the righteous.” (Proverbs 14:19)
“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil…. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”
(Romans 13:3-4)
“Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? Know ye not that we shall judge … things that pertain to this life?” (1 Corinthians 6:1-3)
“[W]e are ready to punish all disobedience, whenever your obedience is complete.”
(2 Corinthians 10:6, NASB)
“But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is … made … for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.”
(1 Timothy 1:8-10)
See also Leviticus 26:14-16; Deuteronomy 7:11-12; Proverbs 28:5; and Habakkuk 1:4.
6. “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge….” (Exodus 18:21-22)
7. “[T]he judges shall make diligent inquisition….” (Deuteronomy 19:18)
8. “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them [given fully, NASB] to do evil.” (Ecclesiastes 8:11)
9. Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment.” (Exodus 23:2)
10. “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord….” (2 Corinthians 6:14-17)
11. “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat.” (Matthew 7:13)

12. Exodus 18:20-22, 22:9; Deuteronomy 1:16, 16:18, 25:1; Ezra 7:25.
13. “[T]hou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness….” (Exodus 18:21)
“Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and … make them rulers over you.” (Deuteronomy 1:13)
“Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom Yahweh thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. But he shall not multiply horses to himself…. Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. …he shall write him a copy of this law in a book…. And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear Yahweh his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them: That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left.” (Deuteronomy 17:15-20)
“The God of Israel said … He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. And he shall be as a light of the morning, when the sun riseth, even a morning without clouds; as the tender grass springing out of the earth by clear shining after rain.” (2 Samuel 23:3-4)
“[Jehoshaphat] said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for Yahweh, who is with you in the judgment. Wherefore now let the fear of Yahweh be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with Yahweh our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts. …Thus shall ye do in the fear of Yahweh, faithfully, and with a perfect heart.” (2 Chronicles 19:6-9)
“[T]heir nobles shall be of themselves, and their governor shall proceed from the midst of them….” (Jeremiah 30:21)
“Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.” (Acts 6:3)
“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil…. For he is the minister of God to thee for good … he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” (Romans 13:3-4)
See also 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9.
14. “This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.”
(1 Timothy 3:1)
“The elders which are among you I exhort…. Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.”
(1 Peter 5:1-3)
15. “And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s….” (Deuteronomy 1:16-17)
“And he [King Jehoshaphat] set judges in the land throughout all the fenced cities of Judah, city by city, and said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for Yahweh, who is with you in the judgment…. And he charged them, saying, Thus shall ye do in the fear of Yahweh, faithfully, and with a perfect heart.” (2 Chronicles 19:5-9)
16. “Neither shalt thou countenance a poor man in his cause…. Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in his cause. Keep thee far from a false matter…. And thou shalt take no gift [bribe, NASB]: for the gift blindeth the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous.” (Exodus 23:3-8)
“Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.” (Leviticus 19:15)
“Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am Yahweh your God.” (Leviticus 24:22)
“Ye shall have one law … both for him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them.” (Numbers 15:29)
“Cursed be he that perverteth the judgment of the stranger, fatherless, and widow. And all the people shall say, Amen.” (Deuteronomy 27:19)
17. “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.” (Exodus 18:2l)
“Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you…. So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes.” (Deuteronomy 1:13-15)
“Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.” (Acts 6:3)
18. “Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom Yahweh thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.” (Deuteronomy 17:15)
“And when Samuel had caused all the tribes of Israel to come near, the tribe of Benjamin was taken [by lot] … the family of Matri was taken, and Saul the son of Kish was taken…. And Samuel said to all the people, See ye him whom Yahweh hath chosen….”
(1 Samuel 10:20-24)
“The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of Yahweh.” (Proverbs 16:33)
“The lot causeth contentions to cease, and parteth between the mighty.” (Proverbs 18:18)
“And they appointed [put forward, NASB] two, Joseph called Barsabas…. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen…. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.” (Acts 1:23-26)
19. “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.” (Exodus 18:21)
20. “…give the portion of the priests and the Levites, that they might be encouraged in [devote themselves to, NASB] the law of Yahweh.” (2 Chronicles 31:4)
“…the labourer is worthy of his hire….” (Luke 10:7)
“For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute [tax, NASB] to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.”
(Romans 13:6-7)
“If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal [material, NASB] things?…. Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach [or minister] the gospel should live of the gospel. (1 Corinthians 9:11-14)
“Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.” (1 Timothy 5:17-18)
21. “Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thus share responsibility for the sins of others….” (1 Timothy 5:22, NASB)
See also 1 Samuel 14:26-45 and 1 Chronicles 21:1-14.
22. “If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before Yahweh, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; and the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”
(Deuteronomy 19:16-21)
23. First Commandment violations: Exodus 22:18; 22:20; Leviticus 20:27; Deuteronomy 13:1-10; 17:2-5, 9-13; 18:20; 19:16- 21; Luke 19:27; Romans 1:30-32;
1 Timothy 1:10

Second Commandment violations: Exodus 22:20; Deuteronomy 13:1-10; Romans 1:30-32

Third Commandment violations: Leviticus 24:10-16, 23; Deuteronomy 19:16-21; John 10:30-33; 1 Timothy 1:9-10

Fourth Commandment violations: Exodus 31:14-15; 35:2; Numbers 15:32-36; Deuteronomy 19:16-21; 1 Timothy 1:10

Fifth Commandment violations: Exodus 21:15, 17; Leviticus 20:9; Deuteronomy 19:16-21; 21:18-23; Matthew 15:4; Romans 1:30-32; 1 Timothy 1:10

Sixth Commandment violations: Genesis 9:5-6; Exodus 21:12, 14, 16, 22-25, 28-31; Leviticus 20:2; 24:17, 21; Numbers 35:16-21, 30-31, 33-34; Deuteronomy 19:11-13, 16-21; 24:7; Romans 1:29-32; 1 Timothy 1:10

Seventh Commandment violations: Exodus 22:19; Leviticus 20:10, 11-12, 13, 15-16; 21:9;Deuteronomy 19:16-21; 22:13- 21, 22-24, 25-27; John 8:3-5; Romans 1:26-32;
1 Timothy 1:10
24. “[I]f any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”
(Exodus 21:23-25)
“And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast. …if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.”
(Leviticus 24:18-20)
“If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before Yahweh, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; and the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.” (Deuteronomy 19:16-21)
“When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.” (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)
“And if men have a quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but remains in bed; if he gets up and walks around outside on his staff, then he who struck him shall go unpunished; he shall only pay for his loss of time, and shall take care of him until he is completely healed.” (Exodus 21:18-19, NASB)
25. “If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double. If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another man’s field; of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution. If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution. If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man’s house; if the thief be found, let him pay double. If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods. For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour. If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep; and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing it: Then shall an oath of Yahweh be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods; and the owner of it shall accept thereof, and he shall not make it good. And if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution unto the owner thereof. If it be torn in pieces, then let him bring it for witness, and he shall not make good that which was torn. And if a man borrow ought of his neighbour, and it be hurt, or die, the owner thereof being not with it, he shall surely make it good. But if the owner thereof be with it, he shall not make it good: if it be an hired thing, it came for his hire.” (Exodus 22:1-15)
“And if men have a quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but remains in bed; if he gets up and walks around outside on his staff, then he who struck him shall go unpunished; he shall only pay for his loss of time, and shall take care of him until he is completely healed.” (Exodus 21:18-19, NASB)
26. “[H]e should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.” (Exodus 22:3)
27. “[I]f the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to his fault, by a certain number. Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee.” (Deuteronomy 25:2-3)
See also Proverbs 10:13, 19:29, and 26:3.
28. “[T]hey put him [a blasphemer] in ward, that the mind of Yahweh might be shewed them.” (Leviticus 24:12)
“[T]hey put him [a Sabbath violator] in ward, because it was not [yet] declared what should be done to him.” (Numbers 15:34)
29. “He that is surety for a stranger shall smart for it: and he that hateth suretiship is sure.” (Proverbs 11:15)
“A man void of understanding striketh hands, and becometh surety in the presence of his friend.” (Proverbs 17:18)
“Boast not thyself of to morrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth.”
(Proverbs 27:1)
30. “If someone is officially summoned to give evidence in court and does not give information about something he has seen or heard, he must suffer the consequences…. When a person is guilty, he must confess the sin.” (Leviticus 5:1, 5, TEV)
See also Acts 5:1-6.
31. “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known…. Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from Yahweh thy God….”
(Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
See also Acts 5:7-10.
32. “If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against Yahweh, and lie unto his neighbour … or hath deceived his neighbour … and sweareth falsely [in a court of law]…. Then it shall be, because he … is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found, or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal [in full, NASB, meaning the required restitution], and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth….” (Leviticus 6:2-5)
33. “If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance, in the holy things of Yahweh; then he shall bring for his trespass unto Yahweh a ram without blemish out of the flocks, with thy estimation by shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering: And he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the holy thing, and shall add the fifth part thereto, and give it unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering, and it shall be forgiven him.” (Leviticus 5:15-16)
“And Yahweh spake unto Moses, saying, … When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit, to do a trespass against Yahweh, and that person be guilty; then they shall confess their sin which they have done: and he shall recompense his trespass with the principal thereof, and add unto it the fifth part thereof, and give it unto him against whom he hath trespassed. But if the man have no kinsman to recompense the trespass unto, let the trespass be recompensed unto Yahweh, even to the priest; beside the ram of the atonement, whereby an atonement shall be made for him.” (Numbers 5:5-8)
34. “If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against Yahweh, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour; or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein: Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found, or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering.” (Leviticus 6:2-5)
See also Exodus 22:1-15.
35. “[S]urely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man … will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” (Genesis 9:5-6)
“[Y]e shall take no satisfaction [remuneration] for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death…. So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.” (Numbers 35:31-33)
“[I]f a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.” (Exodus 21:14)
36. “If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death. If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.” (Exodus 21:28-30)
37. Leviticus 20:2, 7; 24:16; Numbers 15:32-34; Deuteronomy 13:6-10; 17:2-5; 21:20-21; 22:20-21, 23-24.
38. “[T]hou shalt stone him [an advocate of false gods] with stones…. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.”
(Deuteronomy 13:10-11)
See also Deuteronomy 17:12-13, 19:18-21, 21:20-21; Proverbs 21:11, 21:15; and 1 Timothy 5:20.
39. “But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities: Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die.” (Deuteronomy 19:11-12)
40. “Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.” (Deuteronomy 17:5-7)
41. “[H]e that blasphemeth the name of Yahweh, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land….” (Leviticus 24:16)
“But thou shalt surely kill him [an advocate of false gods]; thine hand [the hands of those related to the convicted party] shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.” (Deuteronomy 13:9)
“The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him [a worshiper of false gods] to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.” (Deuteronomy 17:7)
42. “[H]e shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live….” (Exodus 19:13)
43. “And thou shalt come unto … the judge that shall be in those days, and inquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment: And thou shalt … observe to do according to all that they inform thee: …thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto … the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.” (Deuteronomy 17:9-13)
44. “If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before Yahweh, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; and the judges shall make diligent inquisition….” (Deuteronomy 19:16-18)
45. “Then shall an oath of Yahweh be between them both….” (Exodus 22:11)
“If any man trespass against his neighbour, and an oath be laid upon him to cause him to swear, and the oath come before thine altar in this house: Then hear thou in heaven, and do, and judge thy servants, condemning the wicked, to bring his way upon his head; and justifying the righteous, to give him according to his righteousness.” (1 Kings 8:31-32)
“They clave to their brethren, their nobles, and entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God’s law … and to observe and do all the commandments of Yahweh our Lord, and his judgments and his statutes….” (Nehemiah 10:29)
“For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.” (Hebrews 6:16)
46. “Now if a person sins, after he hears a public adjuration to testify, when he is a witness, whether he has seen or otherwise known, if he does not tell it, then he will bear his guilt…. So it shall be when he becomes guilty in one of these, that he shall confess that in which he has sinned.” (Leviticus 5:1, 5, NASB)
“If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods … thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.” (Deuteronomy 13:6-9)
See also Acts 5:1-11.
47. “One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.” (Deuteronomy 19:15)
“[I]n the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.”
(2 Corinthians 13:1)
48. “Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.” (Deuteronomy 17:5-7)
49. “If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before Yahweh, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; and the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”
(Deuteronomy 19:16-21)
50. “Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates [to the main entrance to every city and town] … and they shall judge the people with just judgment.” (Deuteronomy 16:18)
51. “Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.” (Deuteronomy 17:2-5)
52. “[H]e that blasphemeth the name of Yahweh, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of Yahweh, shall be put to death.” (Leviticus 24:13-16)
“But thou shalt surely kill him [an advocate of false gods]; thine hand [the hands of those related to the convicted party] shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.” (Deuteronomy 13:9)
“The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.” (Deuteronomy 17:7)
53. And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan…. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones. And they raised over him a great heap of stones unto this day….” (Joshua 7:24-26)
54. “And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”
(Exodus 21:23-25)
55. “Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”
(Deuteronomy 19:19-21)
56. “If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.” (Exodus 21:30)
57. “And if men have a quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but remains in bed; if he gets up and walks around outside on his staff, then he who struck him shall go unpunished; he shall only pay for his loss of time, and shall take care of him until he is completely healed.” (Exodus 21:18, NASB)
58. “If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him. Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him. If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned. And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit, and not cover it, and an ox or an ass fall therein; the owner of the pit shall make it good, and give money unto the owner of them; and the dead beast shall be his.” (Exodus 21:30-34)
“When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement [railing] for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.” (Deuteronomy 22:8)

Conclusion
For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, and we are ready to punish all disobedience, whenever your obedience is complete. (2 Corinthians 10:4-6)
Each generation’s Christians are entrusted with the same commission: to love Yahweh their God with all their heart, soul, and mind and to seek first His kingdom and His righteousness. This is our duty as individuals, as families, and as a society.
[B]ecause of all this we make a sure covenant, and write it … and seal it. [We furthermore enter] a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God’s law … to observe and do all the commandments of Yahweh our Lord, and his judgments and his statutes. (Nehemiah 9:38, 10:29)
May Yahweh inspire and empower those who at a future point in history will be entrusted with implementing His perfect law of liberty as society’s standard. May He stir, embolden, and protect those of us now who are entrusted and obliged to lay the groundwork for that future generation.
But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord. (1 Corinthians 15:57-58)

The United States is still a British Colony Revisited

February 25, 2016

Introduction by Olddog

It has been many years since the first time I read this as hundreds of other articles and subjects have served to divert my attention from the most informative and convincing of them all. Since foul political manipulations are like rotting flesh and give off detestable odors, one should rely on their sense of smell to guide their mind to the source. This master-piece of research is really all one needs to locate the rotten corpse. Now you will know what, where, when, why, and how we are living in a Nation Beguiled. Since the cultural Marxists who dominate so much of American politics, the media and the universities have captured our attention with trivial lies and exaggerations in an insane effort to keep our minds off the obvious location of tyranny, we must now concentrate on the truth. I have only one suggestion for the fastest total comprehension, and that is to read part 3 first. Read it and weep, it’s damning evidence of our apathy!

Originally by James Montgomery.

The trouble with history is, we weren’t there when it took place and it can be changed to fit someone’s belief and/or traditions, or it can be taught in the public schools to favor a political agenda, and withhold many facts. I know you have been taught that we won the Revolutionary War and defeated the British, but I can prove to the contrary. I want you to read this paper with an open mind, and allow yourself to be instructed with the following verifiable facts. You be the judge and don’t let prior conclusions on your part or incorrect teaching, keep you from the truth.

I too was always taught in school and in studying our history books that our freedom came from the Declaration of Independence and was secured by our winning the Revolutionary War. I’m going to discuss a few documents that are included at the end of this paper, in the footnotes. The first document is the first Charter of Virginia in 1606 (footnote #1). In the first paragraph, the king of England granted our fore fathers license to settle and colonize America. The definition for license is as follows.

“In Government Regulation. Authority to do some act or carry on some trade or business, in its nature lawful but prohibited by statute, except with the permission of the civil authority or which would otherwise be unlawful.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914.

Keep in mind those that came to America from England were British subjects. So you can better understand what I’m going to tell you, here are the definitions for subject and citizen.

“In monarchical governments, by subject is meant one who owes permanent allegiance to the monarch.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914.

“Constitutional Law. One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws. The natives of Great Britain are subjects of the British government. Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.” Swiss Nat. Ins. Co. v. Miller, 267 U.S. 42, 45 S. Ct. 213, 214, 69 L.Ed. 504. Blacks fifth Ed.

I chose to give the definition for subject first, so you could better understand what definition of citizen is really being used in American law. Below is the definition of citizen from Roman law.

“The term citizen was used in Rome to indicate the possession of private civil rights, including those accruing under the Roman family and inheritance law and the Roman contract and property law. All other subjects were peregrines. But in the beginning of the 3d century the distinction was abolished and all subjects were citizens; 1 sel. Essays in Anglo-Amer. L. H. 578.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914.

The king was making a commercial venture when he sent his subjects to America, and used his money and resources to do so. I think you would admit the king had a lawful right to receive gain and prosper from his venture. In the Virginia Charter he declares his sovereignty over the land and his subjects and in paragraph 9 he declares the amount of gold, silver and copper he is to receive if any is found by his subjects. There could have just as easily been none, or his subjects could have been killed by the Indians. This is why this was a valid right of the king (Jure Coronae, “In right of the crown,” Black’s forth Ed.), the king expended his resources with the risk of total loss.

If you’ll notice in paragraph 9 the king declares that all his heirs and successors were to also receive the same amount of gold, silver and copper that he claimed with this Charter. The gold that remained in the colonies was also the kings. He provided the remainder as a benefit for his subjects, which amounted to further use of his capital. You will see in this paper that not only is this valid, but it is still in effect today. If you will read the rest of the Virginia Charter you will see that the king declared the right and exercised the power to regulate every aspect of commerce in his new colony. A license had to be granted for travel connected with transfer of goods (commerce) right down to the furniture they sat on. A great deal of the king’s declared property was ceded to America in the Treaty of 1783. I want you to stay focused on the money and the commerce which was not ceded to America.

This brings us to the Declaration of Independence. Our freedom was declared because the king did not fulfill his end of the covenant between king and subject. The main complaint was taxation without representation, which was reaffirmed in the early 1606 Charter granted by the king. It was not a revolt over being subject to the king of England, most wanted the protection and benefits provided by the king. Because of the kings refusal to hear their demands and grant relief, separation from England became the lesser of two evils. The cry of freedom and self determination became the rallying cry for the colonist. The slogan “Don’t Tread On Me” was the standard borne by the militias.

The Revolutionary War was fought and concluded when Cornwallis surrendered to Washington at Yorktown. As Americans we have been taught that we defeated the king and won our freedom. The next document I will use is the Treaty of 1783, which will totally contradict our having won the Revolutionary War. (footnote 2).

I want you to notice in the first paragraph that the king refers to himself as prince of the Holy Roman Empire and of the United States. You know from this that the United States did not negotiate this Treaty of peace in a position of strength and victory, but it is obvious that Benjamin Franklin, John Jay and John Adams negotiated a Treaty of further granted privileges from the king of England. Keep this in mind as you study these documents. You also need to understand the players of those that negotiated this Treaty. For the Americans it was Benjamin Franklin Esgr., a great patriot and standard bearer of freedom. Or was he? His title includes Esquire.

An Esquire in the above usage was a granted rank and Title of nobility by the king, which is below Knight and above a yeoman, common man. An Esquire is someone that does not do manual labor as signified by this status, see the below definitions.

“Esquires by virtue of their offices; as justices of the peace, and others who bear any office of trust under the crown….for whosever studieth the laws of the realm, who studieth in the universities, who professeth the liberal sciences, and who can live idly, and without manual labor, and will bear the port, charge, and countenance of a gentleman, he shall be called master, and shall be taken for a gentleman.” Blackstone Commentaries p. 561-562

“Esquire – In English Law. A title of dignity next above gentleman, and below knight. Also a title of office given to sheriffs, serjeants, and barristers at law, justices of the peace, and others.” Blacks Law Dictionary fourth ed. p. 641

Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and John Jay as you can read in the Treaty were all Esquires and were the signers of this Treaty and the only negotiators of the Treaty. The representative of the king was David Hartley Esqr..

Benjamin Franklin was the main negotiator for the terms of the Treaty, he spent most of the War traveling between England and France. The use of Esquire declared his and the others British subjection and loyalty to the crown.

In the first article of the Treaty most of the kings claims to America are relinquished, except for his claim to continue receiving gold, silver and copper as gain for his business venture. Article 3 gives Americans the right to fish the waters around the United States and its rivers. In article 4 the United States agreed to pay all bona fide debts. If you will read my other papers on money you will understand that the financiers were working with the king. Why else would he protect their interest with this Treaty?

I wonder if you have seen the main and obvious point? This Treaty was signed in 1783, the war was over in 1781. If the United States defeated England, how is the king granting rights to America, when we were now his equal in status? We supposedly defeated him in the Revolutionary War! So why would these supposed patriot Americans sign such a Treaty, when they knew that this would void any sovereignty gained by the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War? If we had won the Revolutionary War, the king granting us our land would not be necessary, it would have been ours by his loss of the Revolutionary War. To not dictate the terms of a peace treaty in a position of strength after winning a war; means the war was never won. Think of other wars we have won, such as when we defeated Japan. Did McArther allow Japan to dictate to him the terms for surrender? No way! All these men did is gain status and privilege granted by the king and insure the subjection of future unaware generations. Worst of all, they sold out those that gave their lives and property for the chance to be free.

When Cornwallis surrendered to Washington he surrendered the battle, not the war. Read the Article of Capitulation signed by Cornwallis at Yorktown (footnote 3)

Jonathan Williams recorded in his book, Legions of Satan, 1781, that Cornwallis revealed to Washington during his surrender that “a holy war will now begin on America, and when it is ended America will be supposedly the citadel of freedom, but her millions will unknowingly be loyal subjects to the Crown.”….”in less than two hundred years the whole nation will be working for divine world government. That government that they believe to be divine will be the British Empire.”

All the Treaty did was remove the United States as a liability and obligation of the king. He no longer had to ship material and money to support his subjects and colonies. At the same time he retained financial subjection through debt owed after the Treaty, which is still being created today; millions of dollars a day. And his heirs and successors are still reaping the benefit of the kings original venture. If you will read the following quote from Title 26, you will see just one situation where the king is still collecting a tax from those that receive a benefit from him, on property which is purchased with the money the king supplies, at almost the same percentage:

-CITE-

26 USC Sec. 1491

HEAD-

Sec. 1491. Imposition of tax

-STATUTE-

There is hereby imposed on the transfer of property by a citizen or resident of the United States, or by a domestic corporation or partnership, or by an estate or trust which is not a foreign estate or trust, to a foreign corporation as paid-in surplus or as a contribution to capital, or to a foreign estate or trust, or to a foreign partnership, an excise tax equal to 35 percent of the excess of –

(1) the fair market value of the property so transferred, over

(2) the sum of –

(A) the adjusted basis (for determining gain) of such property in the hands of the transferor, plus

(B) the amount of the gain recognized to the transferor at the time of the transfer.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 365; Oct. 4, 1976, Pub. L. 94-455, title X, Sec. 1015(a), 90 Stat. 1617; Nov. 6, 1978, Pub. L. 95-600, title VII, Sec. 701(u)(14)(A), 92 Stat. 2919.)

-MISC1-

AMENDMENTS

1978 – Pub. L. 95-600 substituted ‘estate or trust’ for ‘trust’ wherever appearing.

1976 – Pub. L. 94-455 substituted in provisions preceding par.

(1) ‘property’ for ‘stocks and securities’ and ’35 percent’ for ’27 1/2 percent’ and in par.

(1) ‘fair market value’ for ‘value’ and ‘property’ for ‘stocks and securities’ and in par.

(2) designated existing provisions as subpar. (A) and added subpar. (B).

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1978 AMENDMENT

Section 701(u)(14)(C) of Pub. L. 95-600 provided that: ‘The amendments made by this paragraph (amending this section and section 1492 of this title) shall apply to transfers after October 2, 1975.’

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1976 AMENDMENT

Section 1015(d) of Pub. L. 94-455 provided that: ‘The amendments made by this section (enacting section 1057 of this title, amending this section and section 1492 of this title, and renumbering former section 1057 as 1058 of this title) shall apply to transfers of property after October 2, 1975.’

A new war was declared when the Treaty was signed. The king wanted his land back and he knew he would be able to regain his property for his heirs with the help of his world financiers. Here is a quote from the king speaking to Parliament after the Revolutionary War had concluded.

(Six weeks after) the capitulation of Yorktown, the king of Great Britain, in his speech to Parliament (Nov. 27, 1781), declared “That he should not answer the trust committed to the sovereign of a free people, if he consented to sacrifice either to his own desire of peace, or to their temporary ease and relief, those essential rights and permanent interests, upon the maintenance and preservation of which the future strength and security of the country must forever depend.” The determined language of this speech, pointing to the continuance of the American war, was echoed back by a majority of both Lords and Commons.

In a few days after (Dec. 12), it was moved in the House of Commons that a resolution should be adopted declaring it to be their opinion “That all farther attempts to reduce the Americans to obedience by force would be ineffectual, and injurious to the true interests of Great Britain.” The rest of the debate can be found in (footnote 4). What were the true interests of the king? The gold, silver and copper.

The new war was to be fought without Americans being aware that a war was even being waged, it was to be fought by subterfuge and key personnel being placed in key positions. The first two parts of “A Country Defeated In Victory,” go into detail about how this was done and exposes some of the main players.

Every time you pay a tax you are transferring your labor to the king, and his heirs and successors are still receiving interest from the original American Charters.

The following is the definition of tribute (tax).

“A contribution which is raised by a prince or sovereign from his subjects to sustain the expenses of the state. A sum of money paid by an inferior sovereign or state to a superior potentate, to secure the friendship or protection of the latter.” Blacks Law Dictionary forth ed. p. 1677

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

Another Treaty between England and the United States was Jay’s Treaty of 1794 (footnote 5). If you will remember from the Paris Treaty of 1783, John Jay Esqr. was one of the negotiators of the Treaty. In 1794 he negotiated another Treaty with Britain. There was great controversy among the American people about this Treaty.

In Article 2 you will see the king is still on land that was supposed to be ceded to the United States at the Paris Treaty. This is 13 years after America supposedly won the Revolutionary War. I guess someone forgot to tell the king of England. In Article 6, the king is still dictating terms to the United States concerning the collection of debt and damages, the British government and World Bankers claimed we owe. In Article 12 we find the king dictating terms again, this time concerning where and with who the United States could trade. In Article 18 the United States agrees to a wide variety of material that would be subject to confiscation if Britain found said material going to its enemies ports. Who won the Revolutionary War?

That’s right, we were conned by some of our early fore fathers into believing that we are free and sovereign people, when in fact we had the same status as before the Revolutionary War. I say had, because our status is far worse now than then. I’ll explain.

Early on in our history the king was satisfied with the interest made by the Bank of the United States. But when the Bank Charter was canceled in 1811 it was time to gain control of the government, in order to shape government policy and public policy. Have you never asked yourself why the British, after burning the White House and all our early records during the War of 1812, left and did not take over the government. The reason they did, was to remove the greatest barrier to their plans for this country. That barrier was the newly adopted 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The purpose for this Amendment was to stop anyone from serving in the government who was receiving a Title of nobility or honor. It was and is obvious that these government employees would be loyal to the granter of the Title of nobility or honor.

The War of 1812 served several purposes. It delayed the passage of the 13th Amendment by Virginia, allowed the British to destroy the evidence of the first 12 states ratification of this Amendment, and it increased the national debt, which would coerce the Congress to reestablish the Bank Charter in 1816 after the Treaty of Ghent was ratified by the Senate in 1815.

PART II
Bend Over America
It’s not an easy thing having to tell someone they have been conned into believing they are free. For some, to accept this is comparable to denying God Almighty.

You have to be made to understand that the United States is a corporation, which is a continuation of the corporate Charters created by the king of England. And that the states upon ratifying their individual State constitutions, became sub corporations under and subordinate to the United States. The counties and municipalities became sub corporations under the State Charters. It is my duty to report further evidence concerning the claims I made in “The United States is Still a British Colony, part 1.”

I have always used a copy of the North Carolina Constitution provided by the State, I should have known better to take this as the finial authority. To my knowledge the following quote has not been in the Constitution the State hands out or those in use in the schools. The 1776 North Carolina Constitution created a new corporate Charter, and declared our individual freedoms. However, the same corporate Charter, reserved the king’s title to the land, which restored, and did not diminish, his grants that were made in his early Charters. If you remember, I made the claim that legally we are still subject to the king. In the below quote you will see that the king declares our taxation will be forever, and that a fourth of all gold and silver will be returned to him.

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

(Feast of All Saints occurred November 1 of each year.)

The Carolina Charter, 1663 footnote #5

I know Patriots will have a hard time with this, because as I said earlier, they would have to deny what they have been taught from an early age. You have to continue to go back in historical documents and see if what you have been taught is correct. The following quote is from section 25 of the 1776 North Carolina Constitution, Declaration of Rights.

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

Declaration of Rights 1776, North Carolina Constitution, Footnote #8

Can it be any plainer? Nobody reads, they take what is told to them by their schools and government as gospel, and never look any further. They are quick to attack anyone that does because it threatens their way of life, rocks the boat in other words. Read the following quote from a court case:

“* * * definition given by Blackstone, vol. 2, p. 244. I shall therefore only cite that respectable authority in his own words: “Escheat, we may remember, was one of the fruits and consequences of feudal tenure; the word itself is originally French or Norman, in which language it signifies chance or accident, and with us denotes an obstruction of the course of descent, and a consequent determination of the tenure by some unforeseen contingency, in which case the estate naturally results back, by a kind of reversion, to the original grantor, or lord of the fee.”

Every person knows in what manner the citizens acquired the property of the soil within the limits of this State. Being dissatisfied with the measures of the British Government, they revolted from it, assumed the government into their own hands, seized and took possession of all the estates of the King of Great Britain and his subjects, appropriated them to their own use, and defended their possessions against the claims of Great Britain, during a long and bloody war, and finally obtained a relinquishment of those claims by the treaty of Paris. But this State had no title to the territory prior to the title of the King of Great Britain and his subjects, nor did it ever claim as lord paramount to them. This State was not the original grantor to them, nor did they ever hold by any kind of tenure under the State, or owe it any allegiance or other duties to which an escheat is annexed. How then can it be said that the lands in this case naturally result back by a kind of reversion to this State, to a source from whence it never issued, and from tenants who never held under it? Might it not be stated with equal propriety that this country escheated to the King of Great Britain from the Aborigines, when he drove them off, and took and maintained possession of their country? At the time of the revolution, and before the Declaration of Independence, the collective body of the people had neither right to nor possession of the territory of this State; it is true some individuals had a right to, and were in possession of certain portions of it, which they held under grants from the King of Great Britain; but they did not hold, nor did any of his subjects hold, under the collective body of the people, who had no power to grant any part of it. After the Declaration of Independence and the establishment of the Constitution, the people may be said first to have taken possession of this country, at least so much of it as was not previously appropriated to individuals. Then their sovereignty commenced, and with it a right to all the property not previously vested in individual citizens, with all the other rights of sovereignty, and among those the right of escheats. This sovereignty did not accrue to them by escheat, but by conquest, from the King of Great Britain and his subjects; but they acquired nothing by that means from the citizens of the State Ä each individual had, under this view of the case, a right to retain his private property, independent of the reservation in the declaration of rights; but if there could be any doubt on that head, it is clearly explained and obviated by the proviso in that instrument. Therefore, whether the State took by right of conquest or escheat, all the interest which the U. K. had previous to the Declaration of Independence still remained with them, on every principle of law and equity, because they are purchasers for a valuable consideration, and being in possession as cestui que trust under the statute for transferring uses into possession; and citizens of this State, at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and at the time of making the declaration of rights, their interest is secured to them beyond the reach of any Act of Assembly; neither can it be affected by any principle arising from the doctrine of escheats, supposing, what I do not admit, that the State took by escheat.”

MARSHALL v. LOVELESS, 1 N.C. 412 (1801), 2 S.A. 70

There was no way we could have had a perfected title to this land. Once we had won the Revolutionary War we would had to have had an unconditional surrender by the king, this did not take place. Not what took place at Yorktown, when we let the king off the hook. Barring this, the king would have to had sold us this land, for us to have a perfected title, just as the Indians sold their land to the king, or the eight Carolina Proprietors sold Carolina back to the king. The treaty of 1783 did not remove his claim and original title, because he kept the minerals. This was no different than when king Charles II gave Carolina by Charter to the lords that helped put him back in power; compare them and you will see the end result is the same. The Charter to the lords is footnote #6, where eight proprietors were given title to the land, but the king retained the money and sovereignty for his heirs. The king could not just give up America to the colonialist, nor would he. He would violate his own law of Mortmain to put these lands in dead hands, no longer to be able to be used by himself, or his heirs and successors. He would also be guilty of harming his heirs and successors, by giving away that which he declared in the following quotes, and there are similar quotes in the other Charters:

“SAVING always, the Faith, Allegiance, and Sovereign Dominion due to us, our heirs and Successors, for the same; and Saving also, the right, title, and interest of all and every our Subjects of the English Nation which are now Planted within the Limits bounds aforesaid, if any be;…” The Carolina Charter, 1663 footnote #5

“KNOW YE, that We, of our further grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, HAVE thought fit to Erect the same Tract of Ground, Country, and Island into a Province, and, out of the fullness of our Royal power and Prerogative, WE Do, for us, our heirs and Successors, Erect, Incorporate, and Ordain the same into a province, and do call it the Province of CAROLINA, and so from henceforth will have it called…”
The Carolina Charter, 1663 footnote #5

The U.S. Constitution is a treaty between the states creating a corporation for the king. In the below quote pay attention to the large “S” State and the small “s” state. The large “S” State is referring to the corporate State and it’s sovereignty over the small “s” state, because of the treaty.

Read the following quote:

“Headnote 5. Besides, the treaty of 1783 was declared by an Act of Assembly of this State passed in 1787, to be law in this State, and this State by adopting the Constitution of the United States in 1789, declared the treaty to be the supreme law of the land. The treaty now under consideration was made, on the part of the United States, by a Congress composed of deputies from each state, to whom were delegated by the articles of confederation, expressly, “the sole and exclusive right and power of entering into treaties and alliances”; and being ratified and made by them, it became a complete national act, and the act and law of every state.

If, however, a subsequent sanction of this State was at all necessary to make the treaty law here, it has been had and repeated. By a statute passed in 1787, the treaty was declared to be law in this State, and the courts of law and equity were enjoined to govern their decisions accordingly. And in 1789 was adopted here the present Constitution of the United States, which declared that all treaties made, or which should be made under the authority of the United States, should be the supreme law of the land; and that the judges in every state should be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary not withstanding. Surely, then, the treaty is now law in this State, and the confiscation act, so far as the treaty interferes with it, is annulled.”

“By an act of the Legislature of North Carolina, passed in April, 1777, it was, among other things, enacted, “That all persons, being subjects of this State, and now living therein, or who shall hereafter come to live therein, who have traded immediately to Great Britain or Ireland, within ten years last past, in their own right, or acted as factors, storekeepers, or agents here, or in any of the United States of America, for merchants residing in Great Britain or Ireland, shall take an oath of abjuration and allegiance, or depart out of the State.”

Treaties are the “Law of the Land” HAMILTON v. EATEN, 1 N.C. 641(1796), HAMILTON v. EATEN. Ä 2 Mart., 1. U.S. Circuit Court. (June Term, 1796.)

Your presence in the State makes you subject to its laws, read the following quote:

“The states are to be considered, with respect to each other, as independent sovereignties, possessing powers completely adequate to their own government, in the exercise of which they are limited only by the nature and objects of government, by their respective constitutions and by that of the United States. Crimes and misdemeanors committed within the limits of each are punishable only by the jurisdiction of that state where they arise; for the right of punishing, being founded upon the consent of the citizens, express or implied, cannot be directed against those who never were citizens, and who likewise committed the offense beyond the territorial limits of the state claiming jurisdiction. Our Legislature may define and punish crimes committed within the State, whether by citizen or strangers; because the former are supposed to have consented to all laws made by the Legislature, and the latter, whether their residence be temporary or permanent, do impliedly agree to yield obedience to all such laws as long as they remain in the State;”

STATE v. KNIGHT, 1 N.C. 143 (1799), 2 S.A. 70

Do you understand now? The treaty, the corporate Charter, the North Carolina Constitution, by proxy of the electorates, created residence in the large “S” State. Not by some further act you made. So how can expatriation from the United States, remove your residence in The “State”, which was created by treaty, ratified by our Fore Fathers. As soon as the corporate Charter (treaty) was ratified we returned to subjection to the king of England, through the legal residence created by the treaty. Remember in the quote I gave earlier, by treaty we recanted our declared freedom, and returned to the king his sovereignty and title. In the following quote you will see that the State supreme court sits by being placed by the general assembly:

NC Supreme Court History Supreme Court of North Carolina A Brief History:

“The legal and historical origins of the Supreme Court of North Carolina lie in the State Constitution of 1776, which empowered the General Assembly to appoint; Judges of the Supreme Courts of Law and Equity; and; Judges of Admiralty…..The first meeting of the Court took place on January 1, 1819. The Court began holding two sittings, or ; terms, ; a year, the first beginning on the second Monday in June and the second on the last Monday in December. This schedule endured until the Constitution of 1868 prescribed the first Mondays in January and July for the sittings. Vacancies on the Court were filled temporarily by the Governor, with the assistance and advice of the Council of State, until the end of the next session of the state General Assembly.”

From the internet, address can be made available.

Council of State

What is the Council of State, and where did it originate?

III. “The one of which councils, to be called the council of state (and whose office shall chiefly be assisting, with their care, advice, and circumspection, to the said governor) shall be chosen, nominated, placed, and displaced, from time to time, by us the said treasurer, council and company, and our successors: which council of state shall consist, for the present only of these persons, as are here inserted,…”

“The other council, more generally to be called by the governor, once yearly, and no oftener, but for very extraordinary and important occasions, shall consist for the present, of the said council of state, and of two burgesses out of every town, hundred, or other particular plantation, to be respectively chosen by the inhabitants: which council shall be called The General Assembly, wherein (as also in the said council of state) all matters shall be decided, determined, and ordered by the greater part of the voices then present; reserving to the governor always a negative voice. And this general assembly shall have free power, to treat, consult, and conclude, as well of all emergent occasions concerning the public weal of the said colony and every part thereof, as also to make, ordain, and enact such general laws and orders, for the behoof of the said colony, and the good government thereof, as shall, from time to time, appear necessary or requisite;…” An Ordinance and Constitution of the Virginia Company in England. Footnote #4
The job of the 1st Council of State was to make sure the governor followed the king’s wishes. The 2nd was the general assembly, the laws they passed had to conform to the king’s law.

Read the following quote:

Whereas in all other things, we require the said general assembly, as also the said council of state, to imitate and follow the policy of the form of government, laws, customs, and manner of trial, and other administration of justice, used in the realm of England, as near as may be even as ourselves, by his majesty’s letters patent, are required.
Provided, that no law or ordinance, made in the said general assembly, shall be or continue in force or validity, unless the same shall be solemnly ratified and confirmed, in a general quarter court of the said company here in England, and so ratified, be returned to them under our seal; it being our intent to afford the like measure also unto the said colony, that after the government of the said colony shall once have been well framed, and settled accordingly, which is to be done by us, as by authority derived from his majesty, and the same shall have been so by us declared, no orders of court afterwards, shall bind the said colony, unless they be ratified in like manner in the general assemblies. In witness whereof we have hereunto set our common seal the 24th of July, 1621. . . .An Ordinance and Constitution of the Virginia Company in England. footnote #4
The Council of State still exists to day, although it has been modified several times. The first major change came in the 1776, North Carolina Constitution, read the below quotes:

“That the senate and house of commons, jointly, at their first meeting, after each annual election, shall, by ballot, elect seven persons to be a council of state for one year; who shall advise the governor in the execution of his office; and that four members shall be a quorum; their advice and proceedings shall be entered in a journal, to be kept for that purpose only, and signed by the members present; to any part of which any member present may enter his dissent. And such journal shall be laid before the general assembly when called for by them.” footnote #9
“The governor, for the time being, shall have power to draw for and apply such sums of money as shall be voted by the general assembly, for the contingencies of government, and be accountable to them for the same. He also may, by and with the advice of the council of state, lay embargoes, or prohibit the exportation of any commodity, for any term not exceeding thirty days, at any one time in the recess of the general assembly; and shall have the power of granting pardons and reprieves, except where the prosecution shall be carried on by the general assembly, or the law shall otherwise direct; in which case, he may, in the recess, grant a reprieve until the next sitting of the general assembly; and he may exercise all the other executive powers of government, limited and restrained, as by this constitution is mentioned, and according to the laws of the State. And, on his death, inability, or absence from the State, the speaker of the senate, for the time being, and in case of his death, inability, or absence from the State, the speaker of the house of commons, shall exercise the powers of government, after such death, or during such absence or inability of the governor, or speaker of the senate, or until a new nomination is made by the general assembly.” footnote #9
“That, in every case, where any officer, the right of whose appointment is, by this constitution, vested in the general assembly, shall, during their recess, die, or his office by other means become vacant, the governor shall have power, with the advice of the council of State, to fill up such vacancy, by granting a temporary commission, which shall expire at the end of the next session of the general assembly.” footnote #9
Also take notice who was not allowed to serve as Council of State:

“That no treasurer shall have a seat, either in the senate, house of commons, or council of state, during his continuance in that office, or before he shall have finally settled his accounts with the public, for all the moneys which may be in his hands, at the expiration of his office, belonging to the State, and hath paid the same into the hands of the succeeding treasurer.”
“That no officer in the regular army or navy, in the service and pay of the United States, of this State or any other State, nor any contractor or agent for supplying such army or navy with clothing or provisions, shall have a seat either in the senate, house of commons, or council of state, or be eligible thereto; and any member of the senate, house of commons, or council of state, being appointed to,and accepting of such office, shall thereby vacate his seat.”
“That no member of the council of state shall have a seat, either in the senate or house of commons.”
“That no secretary of this State, attorney-general, or clerk of any court of record, shall have a seat in the senate, house of commons, or council of state.” footnote #9
The king continued to rule through the Council of State until several things were in place, his bank, his laws and tradition. The king succeeded by the acceptance of the American people that they were free, along with the whole of our history not being taught in our schools. The next change to the Council of State came at the conquest of this country, I referred to this in part 1, and in A Country Defeated In Victory.

Read this quote from the 1868 North Carolina constitution, Article 3, sec 14:

SEC. 14. “The Secretary of State, Auditor, Treasurer, Superintendent of Public Works, and Superintendent of Public Instruction, shall constitute ex officio, the Council of State, who shall advise the Governor in the execution of his office, and three of whom shall constitute a quorum; their advice and proceedings in this capacity shall be entered in a Journal, to be kept for this purpose exclusively, and signed by the members present, from any part of which any member may enter his dissent; and such journal shall be placed before the General Assembly when called for by either House. The Attorney General shall be, ex offici, the legal adviser of the Executive Department.” footnote #10

After the Civil War, the conquest of America, you see those that were allowed to be Council of State, were elected officials. Under the 1776 North Carolina Constitution, it wasunlawful for these elected officials to be Council of State. Why? Because, the king could not trust the common man to obey him, now that they thought they were free. After the Civil War the Council of State was no longer needed to fulfill the public policy of the king, the Council of State still exists today, but in a reduced capacity as far as the king goes. Now he had the 14th Amendment, his lawyers in the government, his bankers in control of the governments money, and above all greed that causes most in office to continue the status quo.

The Federal Reserve, Taxes and Tax Court

What I will show you next will shock you. I made brief mention in part 1, that taxes paid in this country were under treaty to the king of England. How about if I told you that the law that created our taxes and this countries tax court go back in history to William the Conqueror. And to further help you understand the below definitions, exchequer is the British branch of the Federal Reserve.

Exchequer: “The English department of revenue. A very ancient court of record, set up by William the Conqueror, as a part of the aula regia, and intended principally to order the revenues of the crown, and to recover the king’s debts and duties. It was called exchequer, “scaccharium,” from the checked cloth, resembling a chessboard, which covers the table.” Ballentine’s Law Dictionary

Exchequer: “That department of the English government which has charge of the collection of the national revenue; the treasury department.” Black’s Law Dictionary 4th ed.

Exchequer: “In English Law. A department of the government which has the management of the collection of the king’s revenue.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1914 ed.

Court of Exchequer: “56.The court of exchequer is inferior in rank not only to the court of king’s bench, but to the common pleas also: but I have chosen to consider it in this order, on account of its double capacity, as a court of law and a court of equity [44] also. It is a very ancient court of record, set up by William the Conqueror, as a part of the aula regia, through regulated and reduced to its present order by King Edward I; and intended principally to order the revenues of the crown, and to recover the king’s debts and duties. It is called the exchequer, scaccharium, from the chequed cloth, resembling a chess-board, which covers the table there; and on which, when certain of the king’s accounts are made up, the sums are marked and scored with counters. It consists of two divisions; the receipt of the exchequer, which manages to royal revenue, and with which these Commentaries have no concern; and the court or judicial part of it, which is again subdivided into a court of equity, and a court of common law.”

Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1554

Court of Exchequer: “An English superior court with jurisdiction of matter of law and matters involving government revenue.” Ballentine’s Law Dictionary

Court of Exchequer: “A court for the correction and prevention of errors of law in the three superior common-law courts of the kingdom.

A court of exchequer chamber was first erected by statute 31 Edw. III. C. 12, to determine causes upon writs of error from the common-law side of the exchequer court. It consisted of the chancellor, treasurer, and the “justices and other sage persons as to them seemeth.” The judges were merely assistants. A second court of exchequer chamber was instituted by statute 27 Eliz. C. 8, consisting of the justices of the common pleas and the exchequer, or any six of them, which had jurisdiction in error of cases in the king’s bench. In exchequer chamber substituted in their place as an intermediate court of appeal between the three common-law courts and Parliament. It consisted of the judges of the two courts which had not rendered the judgement in the court below. It is now merged in the High Court of Justice.”

Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1914 ed.

It gets worse, are you just a little ticked off, or maybe you are starting to question what you have been taught all these years? It’s time to wake up America!

If you’ll look at the Judiciary Act of 1789 (I know most won’t take time to read it), you’ll see that all district courts are admiralty courts. This is the king’s court of commerce, in which he is the plaintiff, recovering damages done against him, or what belongs to him.

The equity court of the exchequer: “57. The court of equity is held in the exchequer chamber before the lord treasurer, the chancellor of the exchequer, the chief baron, and three puisne’ ones. These Mr. Selden conjectures to have been anciently made out of such as were barons of the kingdom, or parliamentary barons; and thence to have derived their name: which conjecture receives great strength form Bracton’s explanation of magna carta, c.14, which directs that the earls and barons be amerced by their peers; that is, says he, by the barons of the exchequer. The primary and original business of this court is to call the king’s debtors to account, by bill filed by the attorney general; and to recover any lands, tenements, or hereitaments, any goods, chattels, or other profits or benefits, belonging to the crown. So that by their original constitution the jurisdiction of the courts of common pleas, king’s bench, and exchequer, was entirely separate and distinct; the common pleas being intended to decide all controversies between subject and subject; the king’s bench to correct all crimes and misdemeanors that amount to a breach of the peace, the king being then the plaintiff, as such offenses are in open derogation of the jura regalia (regal rights) of his crown; and the exchequer to adjust [45] and recover his revenue, wherein the king also is plaintiff, as the withholding and nonpayment thereof is an injury to his jura fiscalia (fisical rights). But, as by a fiction almost all sorts of civil actions are now allowed to be brought in the king’s bench, in like manner by another fiction all kinds of personal suits may be prosecuted in the court of exchequer. For as all the officers and ministers of this court have, like those of other superior courts, the privilege of suing and being sued only in their own court; so exchequer, are privileged to sue and implead all manner of persons in the same court of equity that they themselves are called into. They have likewise privilege to sue and implead one another, or any stranger, in the same kind of common-law actions (where the personalty only is concerned) as are prosecuted in the court of common pleas.”

Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1554

The common-law court of the exchequer: “58. This gives original to the common-law part of their jurisdiction, which was established merely for the benefit of the king’s accountants, and is exercised by the barons only of the exchequer, and not the treasurer or chancellor. The writ upon which the plaintiff suggests that he is the king’s farmer or debtor, and that the defendant hath done him the injury or damage complained of; quo minus sufficient exist, by which he is the less able, to pay the king his debt or rent. And these suits are expressly directed, by what is called the statute of Rutland, to be confined to such matters only as specially concern the king or his ministers of the exchequer. And by the articuli super cartas it is enacted that no common pleas be thenceforth holden in the exchequer, contrary to the form of the great charter. But not, by the suggestion of privilege, any person may be admitted to sue in the exchequer as well as the king’s accountant. The surmise of being debtor to the king is therefore become matter of form and mere words of course, and the court is open to allthe nation equally. The same holds with regard to the equity side of the court: for there any person may file [46] a bill against another upon a bare suggestion that he is the king’s accountant; but whether he is so or not is never controverted. In this court, on the nonpayment of titles; in which case the surmise of being the king’s debtor is no fiction, they being bound to pay him their first-fruits, and annual tenths. But the chancery has of late years obtained a large share in this business.”

Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1555

Definition of a legal fiction: For a discussion of fictions in law, see chapter II of Maine’s Ancient Law, and Pollock’s note D in his edition of the Ancient Law. Blackstone gives illustrations of legal fictions on pages 43, 45, 153, 203 of this book. Mr Justice Curtis (Jurisdiction of United States Courts, 2d ed., 148) gives the following instance of a fiction in our practice:

“A suit by or against a corporation in its corporate name may be presumed to be a suit by or against citizens of the state which created the corporate body, and no averment or denial to the contrary is admissible for the purpose of withdrawing the suit from the jurisdiction of a court of the United States.

There is the Roman fiction: The court first decides the law, presumes all the members are citizens of the state which created the corporation, and then says, `you shall not traverse that presumption’; and that is the law now. (Authors note-by your residence you are incorporated) Under it, the courts of the United States constantly entertain suits by or against corporations. (Muller v. Dows, 94 U. S. 444, 24 L. Ed. 207.) It has been so frequently settled, that there is not the slightest reason to suppose that it will ever be departed from by the court. It has been repeated over and over again in subsequent decisions; and the supreme court seem entirely satisfied that it is the right ground to stand upon; and, as I am now going to state to you, they have applied it in some cases which go beyond, much beyond, these decisions to which I have referred.

So that when a suit is to be brought in a court of the United States by or against a corporation, by reason of the character of the parties, you have only to say that this corporation (after naming it correctly) was created by a law of the state; and that is exactly the same in its consequences as if you could allege, and did allege, that the corporation was a citizen of that state. According to the present decisions, it is not necessary you should say that the members of that corporation are citizens of Massachusetts. They have passed beyond that. You have only to say that the corporation was created by a law of the state of Massachusetts, and has its principal place of business in that state; and that makes it, for the purposes of jurisdiction, the same as if it were a citizen of that state” See Pound, Readings in Roman Law, 95n. Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1553

Combine this with what I said earlier concerning power of the treaty and it’s creation of the corporate State, and you now know why you are not allowed to challenge residence or subjection in the State Courts. And because of the treaty, residence in the State is synonymous with residence in the district. I know this puts a sour taste in your mouth, because it does mine, but that is the condition we find ourselves in. The only way I see to change it, is to change the treaty and reinforce the original Declaration of Independence, but this would meet severe objection on the part of the international Bankers, and or course the king’s heirs in England. And most Americans, even if they were aware of this information, would have no stomach for the turmoil this would cause.

Still a little fuzzy on what has taken place, the word Exchequer is still used today? In Britain the Exchequer is the Federal Reserve, the same as our Federal Reserve. They just changed the name here as they have done many things to cloud what is taking place, hoping no one would catch on. Who wrote the Federal Reserve Act, and put it in place in this country? Bankers from the Bank of England with their counter part in New York!

Congressman McFadden: “I hope that is the case, but I may say to the gentleman that during the sessions of this Economic Conference in London there is another meeting taking place in London. We were advised by reports from London last Sunday of the arrival of George L.Harrison, Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and we were advised that accompanying him was Mr. Crane, the Deputy Governor, and James P. Warburg, of the Kuhn-Loeb banking family, of New York and Hamburg, Germany, and also Mr. O. M. W. Sprague, recently in the pay of Great Britain as chief economic and financial adviser of Mr. Norman, Governor of the Bank Of England, and now supposed to represent our Treasury. These men landed in England and rushed to the Bank of England for a private conference, taking their luggage with them, before even going to their hotel. We know this conference has been taking place for the past 3 days behind closed doors in the Bank of England with these gentlemen meeting with heads of the Bank of England and the Bank for International Settlements, of Basel, Switzerland, and the head of the Bank France, Mr. Maret. They are discussing war debts; they are discussing stabilization of exchanges and the Federal Reserve System,I may say to the Members of the House.

The Federal reserve System, headed by George L. Harrison, is our premier, who is dealing with debts behind the closed doors of the Bank of England; and the United States Treasury is there, represented by O. M. W. Sprague, who until the last 10 days was the representative of the Bank of England, and by Mr. James P. Warburg, who is the son of the principal author of the Federal Reserve Act. Many things are being settled behind the closed doors of the Bank of England by this group. No doubt this group were pleased to hear that yesterday the Congress passed amendments to the Federal Reserve Act and that the President signed the bill which turns over to the Federal Reserve System the complete total financial resources of money and credit in the United States. Apparently the domination and control of the international banking group is being trengthened…. Congressional Record, June 14, 1934

What else does the Exchequer do? The government(Congress) puts up bonds (bills of credit) on the international market, that the Federal Reserve (Exchequer) prints fiat money, for which the government (Congress) is the guarantor for, read the following quote:

Exchequer Bills: Bills of credit issued by authority of parliament.

They constitute the medium of transaction of business between the bank of England and the government. The exchequer bills contain a guarantee from government which secures the holders against loss by fluctuation. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1914 ed.

Also re-read “A Country Defeated In Victory”. Who do you think the national debt is owed to? If that’s not bad enough the bond indebtedness allowed the king to foreclose on his colony when it was time for the one World government, the king/bankers caused us to reorganize under bankruptcy. The Bank of England allowed the United States to use you and I (our labor)for collateral and all the property in America, read the following quote:

Congressman Lemke: “….This nation is bankrupt; every State in this Union is bankrupt; the people of the United States, as a whole, are bankrupt. The public and private debts of this Nation, which are evidenced by bonds, mortgages, notes, or other written instruments about to about $250,000,000,000, and it is estimated that there is about $50,000,000,000 of which there is no record, making in all about $300,000,000,000 of public and private debts. The total physical cash value of all the property in the United States is now estimated at about $70,000,000,000. That is more than it would bring if sold at public auction. In this we do not include debts or the evidence of debts, such as bonds, mortgages, and so fourth. These are not physical property. They will have to be paid out of the physical property. How are we going to pay $300,000,000,000 with only $70,000,000,000?” Congressional Record, March 3, 1934, footnote #10

This debt was more than could be paid as of 1934, this caused the declared bankruptcy by President Roosevelt. Now the national debt is over 12,000,000,000,000. The government only tells you about 5,000,000,000,000, they don’t tell you about the corporate debt, which America is also guarantor for. Add to that the personal debt; you know credit cards and home loans, and it approaches 20,000,000,000,000, that’s trillion for those of you that miss read the number of zero’s. Mix this with a super inflated stock market and a huge trade deficit, and that is what brings you to understand my subtitle for this paper. BEND OVER AMERICA. What could possibly be the purpose of the international bankers allowing our nation to over extend so badly and not cut us off? When back in 1934 they could have legally seized the whole country. We are being used for the purpose of the international bankers which is loaning money to third world countries, to enslave them as we are, to colonize the world for Britain, and to use our military machine to control unruly countries and to collect the king’s debt. There will soon be a United Nations personal income tax for the whole world. The end purpose of the international bankers, is a one world government, with England as the center of government and the international bankers calling the shots.

I am going to share a dream I had, July 1992, at the risk of being ridiculed. I told my friend who is mentioned in the dream, the next day. At that time neither of us understood the dream, about a month later I started to understand when I began learning about admiralty law and where our admiralty law came from. As time has passed I have come to understand the dream, because of further information coming to light, such as the information contained in part 1, and part 2, which you are now reading. I new when I woke up that the dream was not the normal nonsense you can sometimes experience in a dream. And I might add I dream very seldom, after having this dream I was given the desire to write down and pass along the information that has been brought my way, via. the Holy Spirit. The information has defined the dream not the other way around.

MY DREAM

July 1992: A record of a dream I had. I was what appeared to be hovering above the below scene, and it appeared to be three dimensional, like the scene had texture. It was also in color, with the smell of war in the air. I awoke at 5:00 am, and was wide awake and immediately wrote down what took place in my dream.

A friend and I were among thousands of Christians that were massed together awaiting execution. I saw untold thousands of Christians executed before us. There were many troops guarding us, these troops were British; they had on Revolutionary War clothing and were carrying the old style muskets.

The people that went before us to be executed went voluntarily. They went out of some false sense of duty to this envisioned government, that was British controlled. These people were in ranks waiting to be lead away to their death. While standing in the ranks my friend and I kept looking at one another, but we were separated by what seemed to be hundreds of people.

Just before they called our number they lead us away (untold thousands) under guard to return later. I asked some of the people in the ranks to step aside so I could get next to my friend. I told him that while I was in the ranks awaiting death, the Holy Spirit told me not to listen to their reasons for death, but to consider His reasons (Holy Spirit’s) for the sanctity of life and that we were to do whatever it took to stay alive and defeat the beast. I saw myself tapping my friend on the head, and told him this was an example of how the Holy Spirit related to me, that He wanted our attention.

The Holy Spirit said we were to go and do the Holy Spirit’s bidding no matter where it lead us and that we would be protected. We both looked at each other and decided we could not die voluntarily as the other Christians. We looked at each other and said this is crazy, my friend said this is voluntary just like being a Fourteenth Amendment citizen. We then walked out of the ranks right in front of the British guards, unseen and escaped.

Keep in mind you cannot control your dreams. Does God Almighty still communicate through dreams as he did with George Washington? The Bible makes it clear He does. Whether this dream is a product of uncontrolled imagination while asleep, or insight from the Holy Spirit, I will only say, let history decide. I am satisfied of the dreams origin, because of its fulfillment through recent knowledge, that wasn’t known at that time. I hope you will read the rest of the documentation in the footnotes following this commentary.

External Links

Footnote #1 – Chronology of North Carolina Governors and Original Virginia Colony, page 15

Footnote #2 – Virginia Charter, 1609, page 18

Footnote #3 – Virginia Charter, 1621, page 27

Footnote #4 – Charter creating the Council of State,1621, page 29

Footnote #5 – Carolina Charter, 1663, page 31

Footnote #6 – Carolina Charter granting Proprietorship to eight lords, 1669, page 42

Footnote #7 – Florida Charter, 1763, page 65

Footnote #8 – Hudson Bay Charter, 1670, page 69

Footnote #9 – North Carolina Constitution,1776, page 80

Footnote #10 – North Carolina Constitution, 1789, and latter amendments, page 88

Footnote #11 – Congressional Record, page 127

PART 3
Will the real government please stand up!
After writing British Colony parts 1 and 2, I was amazed how some people react, when confronted with information that goes against their prior programming. It is as if to even consider the possibility that their belief system may be incorrect, was a threat to their mental well being. They were going to deny any truth that threatens their belief structure. The good news is those with such a reaction were of the minority. This is promising, because it shows Americans can still think past years of incomplete teaching, concerning our history. Those in the negative believe the information had to be bogus and they could not believe the government could wrong them.

So this third part is for them, to show them that government has and does lie to them and violates their trust on major issues. As always this information and supporting documents, are given so the reader can form their own opinion. Other writers, I will mention one since he uses a pen name, the Informer, has also done extensive research on this subject and has been forced to come to the same conclusions. (Check out the latest work of the Informer, his new book called, THE NEW HISTORY OF AMERICA.)

The information the Informer and I have found is so clear and undeniable, even the doubting thomas’ will have to face reality. Not to make us right, but for America to become aware of lost history, that neither of us formed, but are willing to be criticized in its reporting to correct great error.

Addendum
I will begin with the touch stone of the patriot community, the Fourteenth Amendment. Everyone knows about the citizenship issue. I raised another issue concerning the 4th section of the Fourteenth Amendment in British Colony part 1, and issues regarding sec. 3, in court documents found in Footnote 13. Doubting thomas’ think this is a conspiracy theory.In the new propaganda movie called “Conspiracy Theory”, the establishment wants you to think that anyone that believes there is someone behind the scenes calling the shots is mentally unbalanced. What the doubting thomas’ do not realize, is this is a big puzzle and is hard to recognize, and can be incorrectly viewed. The biggest problem is, it can be put together more than one way, totally changing its appearance and outcome. The doubting thomas’ may say how is it you think you have the correct pieces? My answer is, I shoot a lot of archery, in archery you shoot for the bullseye, not the less important areas outside the bullseye. You have to stay focused on what are the core issues, not the side issues/collateral issues, where valuable time is lost. I conduct my research in this way. Two, I rely on God Almighty to keep me pointed in the right direction. Three, I always tell you not to take my word without checking the subject out for yourself. Most people if plagued with a recurring headache, take a pain reliever, and the headache appears to go away. When in fact all you have done is deal with a symptom, that caused the headache. You have not dealt with the cause. Many patriots today are dealing with the symptoms, like taxes, driving v. traveling and the zipcode, etc. etc. All are important issues and have their place, but they are not the root cause of our problem. Until the cause of the affliction is researched, exposed and then removed, nothing will change.

The lawful de jure united States government which was created by the 1787 Constitution/Treaty, between the States, was made null and void by the fraudulent Congress, that passed the Fourteenth Amendment. This is a bold and broad statement, but I will prove it.

“When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guarantees of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.” Dyett v. Turner 439 p2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403

“Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest of subjugation.” Dyett v. Turner 439 p2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403

The Southern States could not lawfully cede from the Union without the other States being in agreement. In the last sentence you will notice the war was either a rebellion or, the States were made foreign and conquest and military rule took place during the Civil War. This is very important, because of what took place next, and what took place after the Civil War and March 9, 1933. March 2, 1867, President Johnson declared the rebellion to be over and the Southern States to be once again part of the Union, before the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment were passed. So the States were not foreign, they did not have to be readmitted, they picked up in Congress where they left off, with the same State governments they had before the rebellion. If the Southern States had ceded from the Union, without sanction by all the States, their Legislative Acts would have been null and void. In other words if a State or the federal government violates their corporate Charter, it makes any subsequent law void, unenforceable, other than by force of arms.

The following information should upset you greatly and at the same time amaze you, that Americans are totally unaware of this information. How is it in the freest country in the world, and a nation that prides itself on our history, could you have 200 plus million people ignorant of the truth, and that care so little about the destruction of our country? The information I am sharing with you is purposely not taught in the public schools. Why? It will become clear to you that, if the government taught this in the public schools, it would cause the rebirth of American patriotism. Americans would demand our former overthrown Republican form of government; and that the Laws of God Almighty be adhered to. We were promised in the Constitution a Republican form of government, and Benjamin Franklin when asked, said: you have been given a Republican form of government if you can keep it,(paraphrase). By the laziness and greed of the American people over the years our lawful government was stolen, but not without our help.

The Civil War was fought to free the slaves and reunite the Union, or so we have been told by selected history, taught by and through the government. The slaves just changed masters, as I have said before in other research papers, and the white people enfranchised, incorporated, and sold themselves into slavery. Whites along with blacks were made legal fictions so they could be owned and taxed by the king. However, the only way this could be done is by destroying the Constitution, but they had to do it in a way that no one would recognize its destruction, or care thanks to the offered benefits. Now the Proof.

December 8, 1863 President Lincoln declared by proclamation, amnesty and reconstruction for the southerners so they could be readmitted into the Union. Footnote #7 This action along with what Lincoln was doing with the money is why Lincoln had to be killed. The South could not be allowed back into the Union without their enfranchisement. Compare the readmittance oath in President Lincoln’s proclamation of 1863, to the following oath requirement required by Congress, under the Reconstruction Acts, Footnotes #3,4,5 and 6.

“An Act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel States, passed March second, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, shall cause a registration to be made of the male citizens of the United States, twenty-one years of age and upwards, resident in each county or parish in the State or States included in his district, which registration shall include only those persons who are qualified to vote for delegates by the act aforesaid, and who shall have taken and subscribed the following oath or affirmation: “I, _____, do solemnly swear, (or affirm,) in the presence of Almighty God, that I am a citizen of the State of _____; that I have resided in said State for _____ months next preceding this day, and now reside in the county of _____, or the parish of _____, in said State, (as the case may be;) that I am twenty-one years old; that I have not been disfranchised for participation in any rebellion or civil war against the United States, nor for felony committed against the laws of any State or of the United States; that I have never been a member of any State legislature, nor held any executive or judicial office in any State and afterwards engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof; that I have never taken an oath as a member of Congress of the United States, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, and afterwards engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof; that I will faithfully support the Constitution and obey the laws of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, encourage others so to do, so help me God;” which oath or affirmation may be administered by any registering officer.” Reconstruction Act of March 23, 1867, supplement to Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867.

You will note that in the above oath Congress creates legal residence for anyone taking the oath and that this is done by registering to vote, and made a requirement in order to vote. The same legal disability still takes place today when you register to vote. Today you still have voting districts in every county in the America.

You will also notice that, the oath makes you declare that you were not disenfranchised, by taking part in the Civil War. Which means that, before the Civil War Americans were franchised citizens, incorporated. I covered this in part 1; by the States adoption of the Constitution, those that lived in the States became legal residents, incorporated/enfranchised, instead of Sui Juris freemen. Which was granted to them by the Declaration of Independence, and in North Carolina, for North Carolinians this was reaffirmed by the 1776 North Carolina Constitution, see British Colony part 2.

Also, you will see in the following oaths where the language came from, for the creation of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, this language was also used in the 14th Amendment oath you just read. Wherein it declares that, elected officials, judges, legislators and police etc., cannot give aid and comfort to the enemy. The enemy is anyone unincorporated, because the king cannot legally tax you, without using the force of admiralty. The enemy is also anyone that refuses to swear the oath to the de facto government for the above reasons.

The following is the oath given to those that wanted to serve in the United States government.

An act to prescribe an oath of office. July 2, 1862

“Be it enacted, That hereafter every person elected or appointed to any office of honor or profit under the Government of the United States either in the civil, military, or naval departments of the public service, excepting the President of the United States, shall, before entering upon the duties of such office, and before being entitled to any of the salary or other emoluments thereof, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: “I, A B, do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I have never voluntarily borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have never sought nor accepted nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever, under any authority or pretended authority, in hostility to the United States; that I have not yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power, or constitution within the United States, hostile or inimical thereto; and I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter; so help me God;” which said oath, so taken and signed, shall be preserved among the files of the Court, House of Congress, or Department to which the said office may appertain. And any person who shall falsely take the said oath shall be guilty of perjury, and on conviction, in addition to the penalties now prescribed for that offense, shall be deprived of his office, and rendered incapable forever after, of holding any office or place under the United States.”

When the war was over President Johnson declared the States readmitted to the Union and hostilities to be over.

Furthermore; on April 2, 1866, President Andrew Johnson issued a “Proclamation” that:

“The insurrection which heretofore existed in the States of Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi and Florida is at an end, and is henceforth to be so regarded.”

Presidential Proclamation No. 153,

General Records of the United States,

G.S.A. National Archives and Records Service.

On August 20, 1866 (14 Stat. 814); the President proclaimed that the insurrection in the State of Texas had been completely ended and his “Proclamation”continued:

“The insurrection which heretofore existed in the State of Texas is at an end, and is to be henceforth so regarded in that State, as in the other States before named in which the said insurrection was proclaimed to be at an end by the aforesaid proclamation of the second day of April, one thousand, eight hundred and sixty-six.

“And I do further proclaim that the said insurrection is at an end, and that peace, order, tranquility, and civil authority now exist, in and throughout the whole of the united States of America.”

Again the power behind the United States government would not stand for this, so Congress passed the Reconstruction Acts, Footnotes #3,4,5 and 6. President Johnson vetoed the Acts because they were unconstitutional. Below are some excerpts from his veto message.

“It is plain that the authority here given to the military officer amounts to absolute despotism. But to make it still more unendurable, the bill provides that it may be delegated to as many subordinates as he chooses to appoint, for it declares that he shall ‘punish or cause to be punished’. Such a power has not been wielded by any Monarch in England for more than five hundred years. In all that time no people who speak the English language have borne such servitude. It reduces the whole population of the ten States- all persons, of every color, sex and condition, and every stranger within their limits- to the most abject and degrading slavery. No master ever had a control so absolute over the slaves as this bill gives to the military officers over both white and colored persons….”

“I come now to a question which is, if possible, still more important. Have we the power to establish and carry into execution a measure like this? I answer, ‘Certainly not’, if we derive our authority from the Constitution and if we are bound by the limitations which is imposes.”….

“…The Constitution also forbids the arrest of the citizen without judicial warrant, founded on probable cause. This bill authorizes an arrest without warrant, at pleasure of a military commander. The Constitution declares that ‘no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on presentment of a grand jury’. This bill holds ever person not a soldier answerable for all crimes and all charges without any presentment. The Constitution declares that ‘no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law’. This bill sets aside all process of law, and makes the citizen answerable in his person and property to the will of one man, and as to his life to the will of two. Finally, the Constitution declares that ‘the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when, in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it’; whereas this bill declares martial law (which of itself suspends this great writ) in time of peace, and authorizes the military to make the arrest, and gives to the prisoner only one privilege, and that is trial ‘without unnecessary delay’. He has no hope of release from custody, except the hope, such as it is, of release by acquittal before a military commission.”

“The United States are bound to guarantee to each State a republican form of government. Can it be pretended that this obligation is not palpably broken if we carry out a measure like this, which wipes away every vestige of republican government in ten States and puts the life, property, and honor of all people in each of them under domination of a single person clothed with unlimited authority?”

“….,here is a bill of attainder against 9,000,000 people at once. It is based upon an accusation so vague as to be scarcely intelligible and found to be true upon no credible evidence. Not one of the 9,000,000 was heard in his own defense. The representatives of the doomed parties were excluded from all participation in the trial. The conviction is to be followed by the most ignominious punishment ever inflicted on large messes of men. It disfranchises them by hundreds of thousands and degrades them all, even those who are admitted to be guiltless, from the rank of freeman to the condition of slaves.” Veto Message of President Johnson, March 2, 1867, Footnote #8

President Johnson did not realize the king ruled and that in 1845 Congress declared admiralty law to have come on land, nor did he realize the relevance of the Insular Cases. I cover these in “A Country Defeated In Victory” part 1 and in Footnote 11. Once the judiciary decided to look the other way, the De jure Constitution’s days were numbered.

“As a result of these decisions, enforcement of the Reconstruction Act against the Southern States, helpless to resist military rule without aid of the judiciary, went forward unhampered. Puppet governments were founded in these various States under military auspices. Through these means the adoption of new state constitutions, conforming to the requirements of Congress, was accomplished. Likewise, one by one, these puppet state governments ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, which their more independent predecessors had rejected. Finally, in July 1868, the ratifications of this amendment by the puppet governments of seven of the ten Southern States, including Louisiana, gave more than the required ratification by three-fourths of the States, and resulted in a Joint Resolution adopted by Congress and a Proclamation by the Secretary of State, both declaring the Amendment ratified and in force.” Tulane Law Review, The Dubious Origin Of The Fourteenth Amendment. page 36

To regress just a moment, after the war, after the States rejoined the Union, the representatives of the South took their seats in Congress. Later the Thirteenth Amendment was passed in Congress by the Northern States and the Southern States. By the 1787 Constitution they were considered equal contracting partners of the Union. The powers controlling the government had to replace their republican form of government that had existed in the Southern States since they adopted the 1787 Constitution.

“Despite the fact that the southern States had been functioning peacefully for two years and had been counted to secure ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment , Congress passed the Reconstruction Act, which provided for the military occupation of 10 of the 11 southern States. It excluded Tennessee =66rom military occupation and one must suspect it was because Tennessee had ratified the Fourteenth Amendment on July 7, 1866. The Act further disfranchised practically all white voters and provided that no Senator or Congressman from the occupied States could be seated in Congress until a new Constitution was adopted by each State which would be approved by Congress. The Act further provided that each of the 10 States was required to ratify the proposed Fourteenth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment must become a part of the Constitution of the United States before the military occupancy would cease and the States be allowed to have seats in Congress.” Dyett v. Turner 439 p2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403

The way they chose to do it was pass the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the Northern States that put the amendment up in Congress figured the Southern States would ratify. Wrong, the amendment fell short of passing the House and the Senate. The action taken next by the Northern States will go down in history as the most unlawful act ever taken by any government in the world. Since the amendment would not pass lawfully, the Northern States decided to rip the 1787 Constitution up and take over the government. How did they do this? They told the Southern States that refused to vote for the amendment they no longer were members of Congress, denying lawful States suffrage in the Union. In order to get the amendment through Congress the Northern Senators also removed a seated Senator from New Jersey to give them two-thirds in the Senate, and counted 30 abstention votes in the House as yes votes to pass the Fourteenth Amendment in the House. See Footnote #12

Observing how ‘a renegade group of men from the Northern States’, MY NOTE in quotes, actual text in brackets (Congress) had taken the Constitution into its own hands and was proceeding in willful disregard of the Constitution, on the 15th of January, 1868- Ohio, and then on March 24, 1868- New Jersey, voted to withdraw their prior ratifications and to reject.

The following, is an excerpt from Joint Resolution No.1 of the State of New Jersey of March 24, 1868, when they rescinded their prior ratification and rejected:

“It being necessary, by the Constitution, that every amendment to the same, should be proposed by two thirds of both Houses of Congress, the authors of said proposition, for the purpose of securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to, and did, exclude from the said two Houses eighty representatives form eleven States of the Union, upon the pretence that there were no such States in the Union; but, finding that two-thirds of the remainder of said Houses could not be brought to assent to the said proposition, they deliberately formed and carried out the design of mutilating the integrity of the United States Senate, and without any pretext or justification, other than the possession of power, without the right and in palpable violation of the Constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing this State, and thus practically denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage in the Senate and thereby nominally secured the vote of two-thirds of the said Houses.”

“The object of dismembering the highest representative assembly in the Nation, and humiliating a State of the Union, faithful at all times to all of its obligations, and the object of said amendment were one- to place new and unheard of powers in the hands of a faction, that it might absorb to itself all executive, judicial and legislative power, necessary to secure to itself immunity for the unconstitutional acts it had already committed, and those it has since inflicted on a too patient people.”

“The subsequent usurpation of these once national assemblies, in passing pretended laws for the establishment, in ten States, of martial law, which is nothing but the will of the military commander, and therefore inconsistent with the very nature of all law, for the purpose reducing to slavery men of their own race to those States, or compelling them, contrary to their own convictions, to exercise the elective franchise in obedience to dictation of a fraction in those assemblies; the attempt to commit to one man arbitrary and uncontrolled power, which they have found necessary to exercise to force the people of those States into compliance with their will; the authority given to the Secretary of War to use the name of the President, to countermand its President’s order, and to certify military orders to be by the direction of the President’ when they are notoriously known to be contrary to the President’s direction, thus keeping up the forms of the Constitution to which the people are accustomed, but practically deposing the President from his office of Commander-in-Chief, and suppressing one of the great departments of the Government, that of the executive; the attempt to withdraw from the supreme judicial tribunal of the Nation the jurisdiction to examine and decide upon the conformity of their pretended laws to the Constitution, which was the Chief function of that August tribunal, as organized by the fathers of the republic: all are but amplified explanations of the power they hope to acquire by the adoption of the said amendment.”

“To conceal from the people the immense alteration of the fundamental law they intended to accomplish by the said amendment, they gilded the same with propositions of justice…”

“It imposes new prohibitions upon the power of the State to pass laws, and interdicts the execution of such part of the common law as the national judiciary may esteem inconsistent with the vague provisions of the said amendment; made vague for the purpose of facilitating encroachment upon the lives, liberties and property of the people.”

“It enlarges the judicial power of the United States so as to bring every law passed by the State, and every principle of the common law relating to life, liberty, or property, within the jurisdiction of the Federal tribunals, and charges those tribunals with duties, to the due performance of which they, from their nature and organization, and their distance from the people, are unequal.”

“It makes a new apportionment of representatives in the National courts, for no other reason than thereby to secure to a faction a sufficient number of votes of a servile and ignorant race to outweigh the intelligent voices of their own.”

“This Legislature, feeling conscious of the support of the largest majority of the people that has ever been given expression to the public will, declare that the said proposed amendment being designed to confer, or to compel the States to confer, the sovereign right of elective franchise upon a race which has never given the slightest evidence, at any time, or in any quarter of the globe, of its capacity of self-government, and erect an impracticable standard of suffrage, which will render the right valueless to any portion of the people was intended to overthrow the system of self-government under which the people of the United States have for eighty years enjoyed their liberties, and is unfit, from its origin, its object and its matter, to be incorporated with the fundamental law of a free people.”

(The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the threat that it poses to our democratic government, Pinckney G. McElwee, South Carolina Law Quarterly 1959)

Did the political outrage of all history stop there? No!
In order to ratify the amendment in the States, Congress declared war on the Southern States by passing the Reconstruction Acts. Declaring the Southern States had unlawful State governments. They placed the States under martial law, creating military districts which still exist today. Is not the Fourteenth Amendment still in existence today? Nothing has changed. They replaced the lawful State governments with puppet governments, so the Fourteenth Amendment would be ratified by the required 3/4 of the States and would not readmit any State until ratification of the amendment was complete. The illusion is since you vote for your officials, “we can’t be under military occupation”. The privilege to vote would end if your State tried to remove the Fourteenth Amendment.

Back to President Johnson’s veto, the unlawful Congress then over road his veto. Now picture this, you have a lawful President who vetoed the unconstitutional Reconstruction Acts, passed by a de facto Congress. Then the unlawful Congress overrides his veto since they have a Republican majority in the Congress after denying the representation to the Democratic Southern States. This Congress under the 1787 Constitution had no lawful authority to conduct business under the 1787 Charter much less destroy the office of the President. What do you call this? It was a political take over, a coup d’etat.

The Fourteenth Amendment was proposed by Congress to the States for adoption, through the enactment by Congress of Public Resolution No. 48, adopted by the Senate on June 8, 1866 and by the House of Representatives on June 13, 1866. That Congress deliberately submitted this amendment proposal to the then existing legislatures of the several States is shown by the initial paragraph of the resolution.” Tulane Law Review, The Dubious Origin Of The Fourteenth Amendment. page 28

Texas rejected the 14th Amendment on October 27, 1866
(House Journal 1866, pp. 578-584 – Senate Journal 1866, p.471.).
Georgia rejected the 14th Amendment on November 9, 1866
(House Journal 1866, p 68 – Senate Journal 1866, p. 8.).
Florida rejected the 14th Amendment on December 6, 1866
(House Journal 1866, p 76 – Senate Journal 1866, p. 8.).
Alabama rejected the 14th Amendment on December 7, 1866
(House Journal 1866. p. 210-213 – Senate Journal 1866, p.183.).
North Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on December 14, 1866
(House Journal 1866 – 1867. p. 183 – Senate Journal 1866-67, p. 138.).
Arkansas rejected the 14th Amendment on December 17, 1866
(House Journal 1866, pp. 288-291 – Senate Journal 1866, p. 262.).
South Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on December 20, 1866
(House Journal 1866, p. 284 – Senate Journal 1866, p. 230.).8. Kentucky rejected the 14th Amendment on January 8, 1867
(House Journal 1867, p. 60 – Senate Journal 1867, p. 62.).
Virginia rejected the 14th Amendment on January 9, 1867
(House Journal 1866-67, p. 108 – Senate Journal 1866-67, p. 101.).
Louisiana rejected the 14th Amendment on February 9, 1867
(“Joint Resolution” as recorded on page 9 of the “Acts of the General Assembly,” Second Session, January 28, 1867) (McPherson, “Reconstruction,” p. 194; “Annual Encyclopedia,” p. 452.).
Delaware rejected the 14th Amendment on February 7, 1867
(House Journal 1867, p. 223 – Senate Journal 1867, p. 808.).
Maryland rejected the 14th Amendment on March 23, 1867
(House Journal 1867, p. 1141 – Senate Journal 1867, p. 808.).
Mississippi rejected the 14th Amendment on January 31, 1867
(McPherson, “Reconstruction,” p. 194.).
Ohio rejected the 14th Amendment on January 15, 1868
(House Journal 1868, pp. 44-50 – Senate Journal 1868, pp. 33-38.).
New Jersey rejected the 14th Amendment on March 24, 1868
(“Minutes of the Assembly” 1868, p. 743 – Senate Journal 1868, p. 356.).
California rejected the 14th Amendment on March 3rd, 1868
(“Journal of the Assembly” 1867-8, p. 601).
Oregon rejected the 14th Amendment by the Senate on October 6, 1868 and by the House on October 15, 1868 proclaiming the Legislature that ratified the Amendment to have been a “defacto” Legislature (U.S. House of Representatives, 40th Congress, 3rd session, Mis. Doc. No 12).
Did the military occupation ever come to an end? No!

Did the military presence leave the streets? Yes. Technically do you have to have a military presence visible in the streets, for military occupation and martial law to exist? No! Can the military/Commander-in-Chief/Congress, transfer this power to the civil authorities? Yes. Read the following cases, and Lincoln’s General order 100, Footnote #9

“But there is another description of government, called also by publicists a government de facto, but which might, perhaps, be more aptly denominated a government of paramount force. Its distinguishing characteristics are (1) that its existence is maintained by active military power within the territories, and against the rightful authority of an established and lawful government; and (2) that while it exists it must necessarily be [229 U.S. 416, 429] obeyed in civil matters by private citizens who, by acts of obedience rendered in submission to such force, do not become responsible, as wrongdoers, for those acts, though not warranted by the laws of the rightful government. Actual governments of this sort are established over districts differing greatly in extent and conditions. They are usually administered directly by military authority, but they may be administered, also, by civil authority, supported more or less directly by military force.” Thornington v. Smith, 8 Wall. 1, 9, 19 L. ed. 361, 363. Macleod v. U.S, 229 U.S. 416 1913

“While it is held to be the right of a conqueror to levy contributions upon the enemy in their seaports, towns, or provinces which may be in his military possession by conquest, and to apply the proceeds to defray the expenses of the war, this right is to be exercised within such limitations that it may not savor of confiscation. As the result of military occupation, the taxes and duties payable by the inhabitants to the former government become payable to the military occupant, unless he sees fit to substitute for them other rates or modes of contributions to the expenses of the government. The moneys so collected are to be used for the purpose of paying the expenses of government under the military occupation, such as the salaries of the judges and the police, and for the payment of the expenses of the army.” Macleod v. U.S, 229 U.S. 416 1913

To also prove that military occupation still exists, ask yourself this. Is the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified under duress, military occupation; and written and passed by a de facto Congress still in existence? Yes! If a State would today remove the Fourteenth Amendment and the statutory laws this amendment created from their State laws, do you think the federal government would send in the military again? Of course it would. So did the military occupation end? I hope by now you know the answer to that.

Have you never wondered why the government sends your tax dollars all over the world via the IMF and the World Bank etc. etc., with Americans paying the bill, without ever putting this up for a vote? Read the following quote.

“In New Orleans v. New York Mail S. S. Co. 20 Wall. 387, 393, 22 L. ed. 354, it was said, with respect to the powers of the military government over the city of New Orleans after its conquest, that it had ‘the same power and rights in territory held by conquest as if the territory had belonged to a foreign country and had been subjugated in a foreign war. In such cases the conquering power has the right to displace the pre-existing authority, and to assume to such extent as it may deem proper the exercise by itself of all the powers and functions of government. It may appoint all the necessary officers and clothe them with designated powers, larger or smaller, according to its pleasure. It may prescribe the revenues to be paid, and apply them to its own use or otherwise. It may do anything necessary to strengthen itself and weaken the enemy. There is no limit to the powers that may be exerted in such cases, save those which are found in the laws and usages of war.” Dooley v. U.S., 182 U.S. 222 1901

To drive home the relevance of British Colony part 1&2 and what I just said above about taxes, read and understand the below quotes from the Declaration of Rights, September 5, 1774. Maybe it will sink in, we are taxed by Britain and we have not only asked for it but, demanded the benefits supplied by the king, past and present.

GO FIGURE????

“Resolved, 4. That the foundation of English liberty, and of all free government, is a right in the people to participate in their legislative council: and as the English colonists are not represented, and from their local and other circumstances, can not properly be represented in the British Parliament, they are entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in their several provincial legislatures, where their right of representation can alone be preserved, in all cases of taxation and internal polity, subject only to the negative of their sovereign, in such manner as has been heretofore used and accustomed. But, from the necessity of the case, and a regard to the mutual interest of both countries, WE CHEERFULLY CONSENT TO THE OPERATION OF SUCH ACTS OF THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT, as are BONA FIDE, restrained to the regulation of our external commerce, for the PURPOSE OF SECURING THE COMMERCIAL ADVANTAGES OF THE WHOLE EMPIRE TO THE MOTHER COUNTRY, and the COMMERCIAL BENEFITS OF ITS RESPECTIVE MEMBERS; excluding every idea of taxation, internal or ETERNAL, for raising a revenue on the SUBJECTS IN AMERICA, without their consent.” Declaration of Rights, from September 5, 1774 (The forefathers wanted the commercial benefits without paying the taxes that go hand in hand, it does not work that way Patriots.)

“Resolved, 7. That these, His Majesty’s colonies, are likewise entitled to all the IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES GRANTED and confirmed to them by ROYAL CHARTERS, or secured by their several codes of provincial laws.” Declaration of Rights, from September 5, 1774

As further proof, are not all States divided into military Districts? At first glance you may not think so. However, look at your District Courts, in your State. They are the enforcement arm of the admiralty law/kings law and legislation passed on a daily basis. As I said before the voting Districts are also left over from the Reconstruction Acts. In every court room a military flag is flown, a war flag not the Title 4, flag of peace. Are you not required to obtain a license from the de facto government for every aspect of commerce, and the use of their military script/fiat money? Americans are taxed and controlled in the following ways, to name a few:

Social Security number – license to work.
Drivers license – permission to conduct commerce and travel on the military roads.
Occupational license – permission to perform a God given right.
State and local privilege license – license to work in the State, county or city.
Marriage license – permission for a right granted by God Almighty.
Hunting and Fishing license – government taxing property of God Almighty, etc.etc.etc.
Every license or permit is a use tax and is financial slavery, you are controlled in every aspect of your life. All licenses came about after the Fourteenth Amendment and the military occupation, which we are now under. The reason all this has taken place in America is, to colonize the world for Britain. The United States has been the enforcement arm/cannon fodder for Britain since the Civil War.

“The decisions wherein grounds were found for avoiding a ruling on the constitutionality of the Reconstruction Act leave the impression that our highest tribunal failed in these cases to measure up to the standard of the judiciary in a constitutional democracy. If the Reconstruction Act was unconstitutional, the people oppressed by it were entitled to protection by the judiciary against such unconstitutional oppression.” Tulane Law Review, The Dubious Origin Of The Fourteenth Amendment. page 34

“The adversary or the skeptic might assert that, after a lapse of more than eighty years, it is too late to question the constitutionality or validity of the coerced ratifications of the Fourteenth Amendment even on substantial and serious grounds. The ready answer is that there is no statute of limitations that will cure a gross violation of the amendment procedure laid down by Article V of the Constitution.” Tulane Law Review, The Dubious Origin Of The Fourteenth Amendment. page 43

If you want to read more about the military occupation and the War Powers Act, read Footnote #11. This issue concerning the Constitution has to be understood by the Patriots, before you can help others see the illusion. We Patriots need to be able to tell others how we arrived in this condition. But, this will never happen as long as we defend a dead treaty, and expect a lawful remedy from a de facto government.

Is it any wonder why Americans look at us like were nuts. We defy a de facto government and take its benefits. We curse its judges and praise a de facto Constitution that, denies the judges the ability to give remedy to the enemy. We praise the legal document that gave Congress the power to declare us as enemies and curse the Congress for their action. Wake up Patriots! How do you expect Americans to listen to the truth, when we are so easily made to look like fools by the government propaganda machine, and we make it easy for them. We tell the American people the sky is falling, but never give them a remedy, other than keeping the same damn document that enslaved us. We do not tell the American people that there was life before the Civil War Occupation and the Fourteenth Amendment unlawful Constitution, so fear of the unknown will keep them from wanting to learn. The only remedy I see, except for God Almighty’s Judgement, is to expose the fraud. See Footnote 13.

Until you accept the truth about the Constitution you will not be able to understand the information in British Colony part 1&2. I will end this research paper in this way. Someone asked me, “are you not afraid to be killed by the government”? I told them what Shadrach, Meshach, and Abendnego said:

“If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king, But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.” Daniel 3:17-18

Mark Twain: “You see, my kind of loyalty was loyalty to one’s country, not to institutions or its officeholders. The country is the real thing; it is the thing to watch over and care for and be loyal to; institutions extraneous, they are its mere clothing, and clothing can wear out, become ragged, cease to be comfortable, cease to protect the body from winter, disease, and death. To be loyal to rags, to shout for rags, to worship rags, to die for rags–that is a loyalty of unreason; it is pure animal; it belongs to monarchy; was invented by monarchy; let monarchy keep it. I was from Connecticut, whose constitution declared “That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their benefit, and that they have at all times an undeniable and indefensible right to alter their form of government in such a manner as they think expedient.” Under that gospel, the citizen who thinks that the Commonwealth’s political clothes are worn out and yet holds his peace and does not agitate for a new suit, is disloyal; he is a traitor. That he may be the only one who thinks he sees this decay does not excuse him; it is his duty to agitate, anyway, and it is the duty of others to vote him down if they do not see the matter as he does.”

THE REAL HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA QUESTIONS for the Interrogatories

February 25, 2016

By Rebekah Sutherland at becworks@gmail.com

Part One

Who funded the grants for the land development in the Colonies?
What were the names, founding dates, and connections to the King of England by the original 13 colonies?
Who owned the colonies
Did each colony have its own form of government?
Did the colonies have laws?
Did Christopher Columbus discover and claim any of the original 13 colonies for Spain or Portugal?
What is a Commodity Exchange?
Did the colonies have connections to a Commodity Exchange in England?
Does the word “plantation” mean a large farming enterprise?
Did the King of England operate on his own as a free agent in the creation of the colonies?
Did the Treaty of 1213 actually affect the ownership of the colonies?
What did the Treaty of 1213 actually say?
Part Two

Who were the members of the Board of Trade?
Were Jews allowed on the Board?
Did the original 13 colonies have a court system?
What were the types of jurisdiction assigned to the courts in the colonies?
What is the legal meaning of the word “federal?”
Did Commercial Contracts in the United States evolve from something else?
Is there a difference between Government commerce and Private commerce in law?
Do Admiralty courts still exist today?
Why is there paper money, if the Constitution does not allow it?
Did the British International Bankers have other names in history?
Part Three

Legally DEFINE: Contract, Charter, Compact and Constitution?
Was the United States Constitution a charter, compact, constitution or contract?
In legal terminology, is there a difference between “We, the People” and “We, the people?”
In 1776, who was “We, the People” as is written on the U.S. Constitution?
Why did the aristocrats meet in secret to discuss the constitution?
Who actually wrote the Constitution?
How did the Constitution protect The Crown’s investments in America?
When did the United States come into existence?
What were the terms of the Treaty of 1783?
Who was the “most holy and undivided Trinity” that is mentioned in the declaration paragraph of the Treaty of 1783?
What is the legal definition of the word “church”?
What is the legal definition of the word “business”?
Is the United States actually a church organization, an extension of the Vatican?
Part Four

Was the U.S. Constitution ‘ratified’ or ‘adopted’?
What is the difference between “ratified” and “adopted” in legal terminology?
Why did the wealthy aristocrats choose to adopt the compact called “the Constitution for the United States”, which was sent to them by the Vatican via the King of England on behalf of The Crown?
Part Five

What are the divisions of American Jurisprudence?
What is the difference between Tort Law and Contract Law?
What are the three main parts of a binding contractual agreement?
Is there a legal difference between “signing” and “witnessing” a document?
Was The United States Constitution “signed” or was it “witnessed?”
Did the men who “witnessed” The United States Constitution participating in the beginning of a “con job” for the colonists which continues today?
Part Six

What are the legal jurisdictions mentioned by the United States Constitution and what is involved in each?
Is there a difference between Admiralty Law and Maritime Law?
How did Admiralty Law become the jurisdiction in the Federal Courts?
How does one become financially entangled in the Admiralty Law system in the USA?
What is Statutory Law?
What happened in 1938 that revolutionized American jurisprudence?
Why did the USA judges abandon Public Law and switch to Public Policy for decisions?
For what are the international bankers waiting, if the nation is bankrupted?
Constitutional Consternation Part 1

by R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences

July 10, 2010

Presented to the Americans for Constitutional Government

Sugar Creek Club House – Annual picnic

DISCLAIMERS

1. This author loves government so much that she desires three branches of government; and all three operating in a check-and-balanced manner. I am pro-government when it protects the individual.

2. I am not an attorney, nor do I hand out legal advice. I am an American who was educated in the public school system, which taught “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” Therefore, I have performed my duty, studied what is available to me, used whatever talents my Creator assigned to me, and the following are my observations based upon knowledge, which the federal government mandated that I develop on my own.

3. This author is not anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, anti-Protestant, or anti-anything else. This author is Pro-Factual, Pro-Truth, and Pro-Freedom. Everything shared with you is open to your own investigation and interpretation. You are free to “believe” anything you wish.

4. This author is not interested in Conspiracy Theories. A conspiracy by definition must be (1) hidden and (2) illegal. Instead, this author is focused on items that have been written in the legal documents of Record and the legislation by which our freedoms have disappeared. This author is only interested in being extremely correct.

5. My work is not finished. It is entirely selfish. I have no hope, nor any reason, to expect others to accept what I am learning. Forgive me for saying this, but I do not care if you reject it. This investigation is for me. I do not wish to save the world; instead, I must save my own sanity. I must understand why things are happening which appear un-American. I am hunting. You are welcome to read the answers to my questions. I am compiling huge amounts of research into a streamlined format to increase cognitive comprehension and to enhance discussion for further research. My hope is that you will not place yourself in jeopardy to defend the Constitution.

INTRODUCTION

I am a scientist and a teacher with a love for investigative journalism. My love for research was first discovered while sitting on my living room floor surrounded by encyclopedias, magazines, and books, writing a health report in the fifth grade. The love for research is innate. The search for answers to the questions “why” and “how” have created an incredible journey for this soul, which appears to be leading right smack into the center of the prophetic Book of Revelations, the Mayan calendar, the I Chi, and most prophetic works through the ages.

I do not create an opinion, and then find facts to support it. Instead, I find facts, and they lead me to more questions. That is the Scientific Method. When facts are true, then they can be used to predict outcomes with accuracy. That is the only real proof of factual certainty.

PROLOGUE

FACT: The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance [TCD] was developed by Leon Festinger and published by Stanford University Press ( 1957) The theory says that the mind involuntarily rejects information that is not in line with previous thoughts/or actions. Festinger observed: “A person can deal with the pressure generated by changing the dissonance of the old behavior to harmonize with information. But if the person is committed to the old behavior and way of thinking, he simply rejects the new information.” That explains why so many Americans say, “I don’t believe it” when they are presented with new information, and why the Left-leaning agenda is able to brand thinkers as “conspiracy nuts” and “extremists.”

I apologize to many of you today, because you are going to learn things that rearrange the molecules of your brain. When things that we thought were true, are proven false, then it can be traumatic. Do not hide from new realities; instead, embrace them. Make a paradigm shift and go on. Individual responsibility for facts and truths leads one to freedom and independence.

INVESTIGATION

FACT: About 30 years ago, a team of men came together with the sole purpose of going back through the historical legal paperwork to find out why judges were rendering the decisions they were making. The documents and original books filled up a warehouse. Today, most of the team is dead. They were ridiculed for their discoveries, because they had tapped into the real power behind the government. Nonetheless, they discovered the Truth, and one of the team successfully implemented that Truth for himself. He is the only real free Man in the country. I interviewed him five hours and read his works. His knowledge when combined with the other research in my files, led to incredible disclosures and understanding about our government.

CONCLUSION: The United States of America has been locked into a Babylonian economic system the extends from the blend of pagan Emperor Constantine and the Roman Catholic Church in 382 A.D., which is under the control of the King of England, who is owned by the Vatican per the Treaty of 1213. In 1611, King James had the Bible translated into an official English version. King James happened to be the most powerful Freemason in history, because he ruled Scotland and England at the same time. In 1776, the rebellion in the colonies was halted and the aristocrats were placed into “checkmate” by the Vatican, whose message was delivered by the King’s agents. From that point until today, Americans have been taught a Myth about their own history, which holds them in slavery to the most powerful corporation on earth which resides in Rome, Italy. Americans have been deliberately kept ignorant of the Truth.

QUESTION: Is the United States Constitution in effect today?

FACT: President Bush II told the GOP leadership during a meeting about the Patriot Act in November of 2005: QUOTE:”Stop throwing the Constitution in my face! It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

FACT: Citizens feel like they are under siege from all branches of government. They must pay taxes and fees that consume over 50% of their earned wages. They formed the National Rifle Association and the Gun Owners of America to prevent the government from taking away firearms, which are supposedly protected under the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. There is an invasion from Mexico that is ignored by the federal level, yet it is constitutionally mandated to protect the borders.

QUESTION: Where are the Declaration of Independence and The United States Constitution physically located?

ANSWER: The Declaration of Independence is missing.

QUOTE: In the Woman’s Day magazine, July 7, 2009, there is a box entitled, “Independence Day by the Numbers” which states: “25 = Number of copies of the Declaration of Independence known to exist. (No originals with the famous signatures are known to remain.) END QUOTE

ANSWER: The original handwritten copy of The United States Constitution, according to the National Archives and records Administration, QUOTE: “ . .. Is on display at the National Archives and Records Administration in Washington, D.C.” END QUOTE

QUESTION: Can Americans access all of their pubic documents?

ANSWER: No.

QUOTE: “2006 controversy over reclassification– In March 2006, it was revealed by the Archivist of the United States in a public hearing that a memorandum of understanding between Collins and various government agencies existed to ‘reclassify’, (i.e., withdraw from public access), certain documents in the name of national security, and to do so in a manner such that researchers would not be likely to discover the process. [SOURCE: gwu.edu (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20060411/index.htm) (2006-04-11)]

QUESTION: Was the entire creation of the United States of America a con job?

ANSWER: Yes.

QUOTE from Edmond Burke in March 22, 1775 with his Speech on Conciliation with America:

“. . . 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 toward 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 can 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.”

QUESTION: Is there legal evidence that the Constitution did not apply to the American people at large from the very beginning?

ANSWER: Yes.

QUOTE:

The Padleford Case

“But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breach in the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. States are the parties to it.

Padleford, Fay & Co. v. The Mayor & Aldermen of the City of Savanna, 14 Ga 438, 520, S.C. Georgia (1854)

Interrogatories about the Constitution and American Law
By R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences

Part One

OBJECTIVE: If you do not know where you came from, then you certainly cannot know where you are going. It is time to review history and pull together some of the lesser known facts for edification and purification of what America was, is and chooses to become. Seek the Truth, and then you will become aware of the shackles on your ankles and the blinders on your eyes.

NOTE: This author has chosen to use well known academic sources for the concepts commonly taught at the high school level. As the answers become more complicated, the more analytical and legal sources will be used. This is an attempt to keep a difficult subject as simple as possible.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

QUOTE: “The reason why [deception cannot be forced on an Individual] is because deception has to be first created, then conveyed, and then accepted by others – then only can deception succeed. Deception can only find fertility in a human mind to the extent that mind is receptive to it; similarly, in a sense, it actually takes two people to manufacture a successful lie: the first to utter the lie, and the second to accept it as such.” –1985, Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier.

1. Who funded the grants for the land development in the original 13 Colonies?

ANSWER: There were several entities involved in exploring America, but the King of England was the point of contact. Other countries said that they had claim to lands; however, they were not clever enough to get the paperwork straight, nor were they strong enough to defend their legal Claim; hence, they lost both the legal and physical battle for occupation of America.

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

[SOURCE: World Book Encyclopedia (WBE)]

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

3. Who owned the colonies?

ANSWER: The legal contracting documents for the colonies were of three types, but all of them were under the direction of the King of England:

(a) royal – under the direct control of the King
(b) proprietary-under the control of a Proprietor, an appointed by the King
(c) corporate-under a charter obtained from the King of England by a company with stockholders. [SOURCE: WBE]

4. Did each colony have its own form of government?

ANSWER: Each colony had a governor and a legislature; however, the King of England appointed the governor over the royal colonies. In proprietary colonies, the King appointed the Proprietor, who appointed the governor. In Connecticut and Rhode Island the people elected the governor; however, Connecticut was under the Fundamental Orders until it received a royal charter in 1662 and Rhode Island was under the English charter of 1663, which served as its constitution. [SOURCE: WBE]

5. Did the colonies have laws?

ANSWER: The laws that were passed by any of the colonial legislatures had to be approved by the English government. Governors appointed by the King had the responsibility of carrying out his orders. The King expected them to enforce the laws of England, especially acts of Parliament that regulated colonial trade. [SOURCE: WBE]

6. Did Christopher Columbus discover and claim any of the original 13 colonies for Spain or Portugal?

ANSWER: No. Columbus traveled around the areas of Jamaica, Costa Rica, Panama, etc. [SOURCE: WBE]

7. What is a Commodity Exchange?

ANSWER: “Commodity exchanges are voluntary trade associations. They are called organized markets, because all members must follow certain trading rules. All business, for example, must be conducted on the trading floor within certain hours. Rules set the commission (fee) that may be charged in a transaction, and the time within which payment must be made.” [SOURCE: WBE]

8. Did the colonies have connections to a Commodity Exchange in England?

ANSWER: Yes, It was called the Board of Trade (1621-1970)
QUOTE:
URL: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/
“The1621 Privy Council, directed by the King, ‘to take into their consideration, the true causes of the decay of trade and scarcity of coin within the Kingdom and to consult the means for the removing of these inconveniences.’ As a result a committee of inquiry was set up named ‘The Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Foreign Plantations’ (this is still the formal title of the ‘Board of Trade’) and this committee can be regarded as the germ of the Board of Trade.”

“Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, trade matters remained the responsibility of Privy Council Committees. In 1696 William III set up a body of eight paid Commissioners ‘for promoting the trade of our Kingdom and for inspecting and improving our plantations in America and elsewhere.’”

9. Does the word “plantation” mean a large farming enterprise?

ANSWER: No. The definition found in Burke on Conciliation of the Colonies stated, “Plantations–colonies; the plantings of a new society or race. The term is regularly so used in Acts and Charters, and has no reference whatever to cultivation of the soil.”

10. Did the King of England operate on his own as a free agent in the creation of the colonies?

ANSWER: No. The King of England was bound to the Treaty of 1213. The following brief history explains who was actually in charge of the colonies.

QUOTE:
[ INTRO: The King refused to accept Stephen Langton as the Archbishop of Canterbury by Pope Innocent III in 1208, and the King was excommunicated from the Catholic Church by the Pope for his disobedience to contractual agreements to the Crown. The Pope and the King owed money to the Crown bankers, so the Pope had to reign in a naughty King in order to avoid default to The Crown.]

“Faced with defeat by the forces aligned against him by the Vatican, King John ran for cover, and sought to regain the support of the Pope. He returned the title to his kingdoms of England and Ireland to the Pope, as vassals, swore submission and loyalty to him, accepted Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury, and offered the Pope a vassal’s bond of fealty and homage, an annual tribute of 1,000 marks (equivalent to a bit more than 666 pounds sterling) and the return of the Church property he had seized when he had rebelled against it.

“Two months later, in July 1213, King John was: absolved of excommunication, at Winchester, by the return Arch Bishop of Canterbury Langton.

“Three months later, on October 3, 1213, King John ratified his surrender of his kingdoms to the Pope, who by virtue of his position as Vicar of Christ claims ownership of everything and everyone, on earth in the tradition of the Nazarene-Communist supercapitalist superdictatorship that is true fundamentalist Christianity.

“On April 21, 1214, the Pope, in Rome, formally accepted King John’s surrender of his kingdoms and his pledge of vassal (together with the moneys paid in tribute); and three months later, in July 1214, Pope Innocent III raised the interdict against the English.

“Thus the Pope assured the English of ‘access to Heaven,’ from which they had been ‘barred’ by their king’s opposition to the church’s Nazarene, or Communist, totalitarianism and denial of civil rights to mankind.”

[SOURCE: British Museum Publication G. R. C. Davis, entitled Magna Carta (211), and American Counsel of Christian Laymen: How Red is The Federal Counsel of Churches.]

11. Did the Treaty of 1213 actually affect the ownership of the colonies?

ANSWER: The Vatican owned the colonies, but let the King serve as the manager for the enterprise. The Vatican was busy fighting Crusades and expanding The Kingdom.

12. What did the Treaty of 1213 actually say?

ANSWER: The original Treaty of 1213 is located in the London Archives and is available to Ph.D.s; however, a copy of a translation has been made available. It remains in power to this day. It states:

QUOTE: “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 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 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.” [END QUOTE]

End of Part 1

Disclaimer: These interrogatories are not intended as legal advice, nor do they offer any political suggestions to the reader. All verification is left to the reader. The interrogatories by this author are an academic attempt to digest the evidence and instruction found in many sources, and especially in two books entitled: The Myth and The Reality; and A New History for America. The Informer has displayed tremendous intellectual fortitude with his serious scientific analysis of the evidence throughout written history of the events leading up to, during, and following the Revolutionary War. The conclusions are breath-taking upon the first reading, because the evidence demands huge paradigm shifts in knowledge structure and assumption. Americans have no idea who they really are on a global scale, how their Courts came into being, nor why they keep losing nonexistent “Rights.” Well, it is time to ask some very good questions and seek truthful answers. LEARN.

Interrogatories about the Constitution and American Law
By R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences

Part 2

OBJECTIVE: If you do not know where you came from, then you certainly cannot know where you are going. It is time to review history and pull together some of the lesser known facts for edification and purification of what America was, is and chooses to become. This is important.

13. Who were the members of the British Board of Trade?

ANSWER: The Board included agents of the King of England, members of the Privy Council (i.e., legislative bodies), and the Archbishop of Canterbury who represented the Church of England. [SOURCE: World Book Encyclopedia (WBE)]

14. Were Jews allowed on the Board of trade?

ANSWER: No. The Board refused to allow either the Lombards or the Jewish moneylenders onto their Board. They were segregated because their religious rules made them useful for the Board. The following quote is an excellent explanation.

QUOTE: The Federal Reserve Conspiracy and Rockefeller (1952)
By Emanuel Josephson

“Since commerce and money are the livelihoods of nations and their peoples, the control of money is the obvious key to the control of nations and the world. …Rome’s successor the Holy Roman Empire dissimulated its interest in money and its power. This was in accord with its professed tenets of Nazarene, theistic Communism.

“Under ecclesiastic Canon Law, even profits in business transactions were decreed to be the cardinal sin and capital offense of ‘usury’ As late as the sixteenth century, one hundred businessmen were burned at the stake in Geneva, as a penalty under Church law, for making profits in their business transactions. Title to all wealth , as well as to the person and lives of all the earth, are claimed by the Church, on the ground that their ownership is divinely vested in the Pope as the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth.

“Thus theistic, Nazarene Communism, and the ‘modern’ religion that goes by the name of Communism and is supposedly atheist, both are basically supercapitalist and both mask their grab for money and wealth.

“Title to all wealth was vested in the Church and in its champion ‘knights,’ who at the same time assumed the role of so-called ‘protectors,’ much like the present day labor leaders of their vassals whom they mercilessly enslaved and looted.

“Both Churchmen and lay knights used the despised Jews for the conduct of their usurious financial operations, in order to avoid ‘sinning’ and the death penalty that it involved. The Jews proved very useful and handy for that purpose. Their use was justified by their ‘CHRISTIAN’ masters in a manner that they were taught by their faith was incontrovertible. Jews were damned and doomed by their faith and their failure to accept the divinity of Jesus and the perversion of His teachings by the Jewish merchant, Saul of Tarsus, alias St. Paul, opined the Churchmen; and therefore, it was ‘good work’ to hasten them to damnation.

“This they did by forcing their Jewish serfs to engage, as their pawns, in the ‘sin’ and ‘crime’ of ‘usury’ by which was meant the charging of interest as well as loan sharking and engaging in profitable commerce, for their Christian, ecclesiastical bosses.

“Often the Churchmen barred the Jews, by their orders and laws, from engaging in any other vocation than those to which the stigma of usury was attached, especially loan-sharking, as their agents. This was a particular advantageous set up for the Churchmen. For if the Jew was merciful and failed to extract from the victims everything that they possessed (i.e., the last drop of blood), he was burned at the stake as a ‘heretic.’

“On the other hand, if the Jew mercilessly followed orders of his priestly boss, was honest with his boss and amassed a fortune for him and for himself, there was nothing to bar his Christian master from exercising his cupidity and robbing his faithful loan-shark by charging him with the ‘sin’ of usury, confiscating the fortune he had made in his service, and with great hypocritic show of ‘piety,’ burn him at the stake—‘to ensure his salvation.’

“The victorious Lombard invaders of the Holy Roman Empire changed the financial situation in much the same manner as have the latter day Maffia extortioners and blackmailers. Seizing control of the Church, they gave themselves ‘dispensation’ to disregard the Canon Law on usury. They openly engaged in it from the very steps of the Vatican.

“Dispensation from the Canon on Usury was subsequently granted by the Vatican, in the 15th century, to the German Fuggers, the Rockefellers of that era. Their profits from commerce, usury and the sale of papal dispensations, as agents of the Vatican, grew rapidly, as did their ‘payoff’ to the church. They were heaped with Papal honors. Both their grasping greed and merciless loan-sharking earned for them distrust and terror. When one of their number was elevated to the rank of Cardinal, the Churchmen feared that the Fuggers would reach out and steal the Vatican itself. They then decided that their Jewish pawn were more completely at their mercy, more amenable and safer.

“Trusteeship of the fortune of one of the wealthiest Christian rulers of Europe, whose confidence had been earned by honest and trustworthy dealings during the Napoleonic wars, is the source of the wealth and influence that the Rothechilds acquired in the first decades of the 19th century.

“Subsequently, after making a large loan to the hard pressed Vatican, that no Christian would consider making, they became the fiscal agents of the Vatican, received Papal decorations and preferments, and enforced the policies dictated by the Church. It was largely in this sense that they were ‘international bankers.’ And the policies dictated by them were in effect the policies dictated by the Church. They enforced those policies through their establishments in many lands.

“An amusing story is told of the earliest relations of the Rothschilds with the Vatican. The Vatican found itself short of ready cash after almost half a century of war waged on it for the Jesuit Order by one of its unordained members, Adam Weishaupt, to avenge its abolition, in 1773, as ‘immoral and a menace to the Church and the Faith’ by short lived Pope Clement XIV in his Papal breve Dominus Ac Redemptor.

“Weishaupt and his fellow Jesuits cut off the income to the Vatican by launching and leading the French Revolution; by directing Napoleon’s conquest of Catholic Europe; by the revolt against the Church led by such priests as Father Hidalgo, in Mexico and Latin America; by eventually having napoleon throw Pope Pius Vii in jail at Avignon until he agreed, as the price for his release, to reestablish the Jesuit Order. This Jesuit war on the Vatican was terminated by the Congress of Vienna and by the secret, 1822 Treaty of Verona. . .

“The Rothschilds sought to extend their financial and political dominion to the United States, for themselves primarily to serve their Vatican masters. The Vatican’s interest in the U.S. Republic was clearly revealed in the Treaty of Verona, in which the Jesuit Order pledged itself, as the price of reestablishment, to destroy ‘the works of Satan’ that it had accomplished in setting up, by revolts, representative governments such as republics and so called ‘democracies.’

“Senator Robert Owen pointed out, in the Senate, that the prime target to which the Vatican and the ‘Holy Alliance’ directed the subversive and destructive activities of the Society of Jesus is the United States, [See Congressional Record, April 25, 1916], as well as other republics in the Western Hemisphere. This plot, he related, was the target at which the Monroe Doctrine was directed.

“The Rothschild-Vatican cabal unsuccessfully attempted to gain control over the power of the purse in the U.S. through the First and Second Bank of the United States. They were established under the emergency powers granted the President by the Constitution, as temporary institutions to tide the country through the periods of financial stress occasioned by the Revolutionary and 1812 Wars.” [END QUOTE]

15. Did the original 13 colonies have a court system?

ANSWER: Yes.

QUOTE: “Encyclopedia of American History – “in 1697 the British Board of Trade, under the Navigation Act, established vice-admiralty courts in all the colonies. These courts had jurisdiction over Trade, ordinary maritime cases as well as prize. It even granted jurisdiction by the Act of 1722 over infringements concerning timber. These Admiralty courts, set up under the Townshend Acts, centered final control in America.” [Source: The New History of America, by The Informer, page 4]

16. What were the types of jurisdiction assigned to the courts in the colonies?

ANSWER: Admiralty and maritime.

QUOTE: “Admiralty, by Benedict, 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–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 , the whole people, in their national, international, and interstate relations and all other purposes were subordinate and ancillary to this.

“Section 123 – 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.”

17. What is the legal meaning of the word: “federal”?

ANSWER: The word “federal” simply put means “contract.”
QUOTES: From The American College Dictionary, 1947:
“Federal – 1. Of or pertaining to a compact or a league, esp. a league between nations or states.”
“Compact–an agreement between parties; a covenant; a contract.”

NOTE: The more modern dictionaries are missing the original definitions as the university professors began to reshape society by gradually changing the definitions of words our students learn and use.

18. Did Commercial Contracts in the United States evolve from something else?

ANSWER: Yes.
QUOTE from Section 065, “Invisible Contracts,” by George Mercier:
“Here in the United States, in a Commercial contract factual setting, the word ‘covenant’ is an Old English Law Merchant origin, and now means only a few clauses within a larger contract. . .”

19. Is there a difference between Government commerce and Private commerce in law?

ANSWER: Yes.
QUOTE from Section 387, “Invisible Contracts,” by George Mercier:
“Admiralty Jurisdiction is the KING’S COMMERCE of the High Seas . .. But as for that slice of Commerce going out on the High Seas without the King as a party, that Commerce is called Maritime Jurisdiction, and so Maritime is the private Commerce that transpires in a marine environment. At least, that distinction between Admiralty and Maritime is the way things once were, but no more.”

20. Do Admiralty courts still exist today?

ANSWER: Yes, it is the United States Federal Court system.
QUOTE:
“This is the type of court that exists today and why we cannot bring a pure Article of the Bill of Rights argument into a contract [i.e., federal] court of the Law-Merchant in their civil law. As Benedict states at Section 5,” . .. The civil law was held to be the law of admiralty, and the course of proceedings in admiralty, closely resembled the civil law practice.” All maritime revenue cases, whether State or United States, deals in contract. …
[Source: The New History of America, by The Informer, page 5.]

QUOTE from Section 049, “Invisible Contracts,” by George Mercier.
“In such administrative enforcement proceedings under grievances arising out of privileges and contracts that Congress created, Federal Judges are acting MINISTERIALLY as Legislative Court, functioning as an extension of the agency for the King, and not Judicially as an Article III Court acting like neutral and disinterested referees calling the shots as umpires between adversaries; and so some steps taken by the Judge acting MINISTERIALLY, to shorten the proceedings or otherwise silence the Defendant when irrelevant subject matter is being discussed, are largely non-reversible on appeal. In Northern Pipeline vs Marathon Pipe Line ]458 U.S. 50 (1982)], the Supreme Court ruled that Congress can create non-Article III LEGISLATIVE COURTS in three areas: Territorial Courts, Military Courts Martial, and in disputes involving privileges that Congress created in the first place [MARATHON, id., at pages 64 et seq.]. Participating in that closed private domain of King’s [government] Commerce is very much accepting and benefitting from a privilege created by Congress.

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

QUOTE: “We don’t use the word constitution in this court,” said the Aiken Federal Judge during a hearing for a Freedom of Information Act violation in the City of Aiken. This author was the Plaintiff, and was awarded damages for the failure of the city to give information per the FOIA, but no discussion about the constitutional merits of the case were allowed to be discussed..

21. The U.S. Constitution states in Article I, Section 8, “The Congress shall have Power . .. To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; . .. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures”. So, why is there also paper money if it is not constitutional?

ANSWER: It all began in 1751 with the English Parliament.
QUOTE from Source: The New History of America, by The Informer, page 7:
“In March of 1751, the British Board of Trade presented Parliament with a Restraining Act, which barred the Colonies, by law, from issuing paper money and letters of Credit. This gave the King’s orders the validity of formal law. The Colonies didn’t buy it, for it destroyed their control of the trade. You see, there was no gold or silver being mined in America. They had to rely on gold and silver from other countries. England had most of the gold.

“On July 10, 1754, the Confederacy was born because of this, so they could issue paper money, only on their joint order. Ben Franklin had long advocated this.

“In March of 1775, the Pennsylvania Assembly borrowed money and issued bills of Credit without authorization of either King or Governor. The Board of Trade tried another ploy and said that Gold and Silver have intrinsic value, and therefore, should be used by the Colonies. Because of ‘them’ issuing ‘paper money’ it ‘ruins the Colonies,’ so said the Tories.

“Now get this people, Franklin replied to the contrary saying that paper money served as a medium of exchange and credit had made possible the growth of the Colonies and their trade. He told the Board of Trade that the Tories argued that the paper money issued by the colonies was a dilution of their control of wealth.

“This explains why the federal government is denied the power to issue currency other than coin or to set up or charter banks. But they do it under ‘emergency power.’ This is why the present day private Federal Reserve System, counterpart of the British Board of Trade, runs this country today.

“Now you know why the Crown initiated the coin only clause in the Constitution, so the private bankers could control the paper credit. Paper is NOT money.”

QUOTE from Section 390, “Invisible Contracts,’ by George Mercier:
“However, today in the United States, all Commercial contracts that private parties enter into with each other that are under Maritime Jurisdiction, are now also under Admiralty: Reason: the beneficial use and reticulation of Federal Reserve Notes makes the King [government] an automatic silent Equity third party to the arrangements.”

End of Part 2. To be continued …

Disclaimer: These interrogatories are not intended as legal advice, nor do they offer any political suggestions to the reader. All verification is left to the reader. The interrogatories by this author are an academic attempt to digest the evidence and instruction found in many sources, and especially in two books entitled: The Myth and The Reality; and A New History for America. The Informer has displayed tremendous intellectual fortitude with his serious scientific analysis of the evidence throughout written history of the events up to, during, and following the Revolutionary War. The conclusions are breath-taking upon the first reading, because the evidence demands huge paradigm shifts in knowledge structure and assumption. Americans have no idea who they really are on a global scale, how their Courts came into being, nor why they keep losing nonexistent “Rights.” Well, it is time to ask some very good questions and seek truthful answers. LEARN.

Interrogatories about the Constitution and American Law

By R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences

Part 3

OBJECTIVE: If you do not know where you came from, then you certainly cannot know where you are going. It is time to review history and pull together some of the lesser known facts for edification and purification of what America was, is and chooses to become. This is important.

22. What other names were given to the British International Bankers in history?

ANSWER: They were called Fruggers, Knights Templar, Gisors, Tuscans, etc., and today they are called The Crown. [The Myth and The Reality, by The Informer, Page 6]

23. Legally DEFINE: Contract, Charter, Compact and Constitution?

ANSWER:

Contract: “An agreement between two or more persons which creates an obligation to do or not to do a particular thing. . . A legal relationship consisting of the rights and duties of the contracting parties; a promise or set of promises constituting an agreement between the parties that gives each a legal duty to the other and also the right to seek a remedy for the breach of those duties. [Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition]

Charter: “An instrument emanating from the sovereign power, in the nature of a grant, either to the whole nation, or to a class or portion of the people, to a corporation, or to a colony or dependency, assuring to them certain rights, liberties, or powers . .. A charter differs from a constitution, in that the former is granted by the sovereign, while the later is established by the people themselves. [Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition]

Compact: “. . .A contract between parties, which creates obligations and rights capable of being enforced and contemplated as such between the parties, in their distinct and independent characters. . .” [Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition]

Constitution: “ . . . A charter of government deriving its whole authority from the governed. The written instrument agreed upon by the people of the Union, or a particular states, . .. In a more general sense, any fundamental or important law or edict; as the Novel Constitutions of Justinian; the Constitutions of Clarendon.” [Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition]

24. Was the United States Constitution a charter, compact, constitution or contract?

ANSWER: It was a compact between the Vatican, who controlled the King of England, and the aristocrats of the thirteen colonies. [The New History of America, by The Informer, Page 20]

QUOTE: John C. Calhoun, in 1831 said, “The Constitution of the United States is, in fact, a compact, to which each State is a party.” [SOURCE: The New History of America, by The Informer, page 20.]

QUOTE: Thomas Jefferson in 1789 stated, “To this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-states forming, as to itself, the other party.”

QUOTE: “Patrick Henry said he was ‘no longer a Virginia, but an American.’ He did not say he was an American citizen, because the compact merged all confederate states as if one, and you couldn’t tell the difference.” [SOURCE: The New History of America, by The Informer, Page 20]

QUOTE: “United States is a place within America and it is not a country. Also, what you were not told were the framers signed the Constitution as witnesses only. In law, that is an impossibility to witness a document no one signed . . . The Constitution was not only never signed by anybody, but it was never delivered by anybody, or to anybody’s agent or attorney. It can therefore be of no more validity as a contract, than can any other instrument that was never signed or delivered . . . On general principles of law and reason, the oaths which these pretended agents of the people take ‘to support the Constitution,’ are of no validity or obligation. And why? For this, if for no other reason, viz., that they are given to nobody. There is no privity (as the lawyers say) –that is, no mutual recognition, consent, and agreement—between those who take these oaths, and any other persons.” [SOURCE: The Myth and The Reality, by The Informer, pages 10-13]

25. In legal terminology, is there a difference between “We, the People” and “We, the people?”

ANSWER: Yes. In the phrase, “We, the People” the capitalized word makes it a proper noun, which means that “the People” was a specific group (i.e., the aristocrats). In the phrase, “We, the people” the common noun indicates that the phrase refers to people in a general sense. [The Myth and The Reality, by The Informer, Pages 25-26]

26. In 1776, who was “We, the People” referring to in the U.S. Constitution?

ANSWER: The “People” referenced by the Constitution were the wealthy aristocrats. All of the men held Grants and Charters with the King. They owed him, as well as The Crown, interest on the credit extended to them for planting the new society. They profited very well from their exports all over the world. [The Myth and The Reality, by The Informer, Page 23]

QUOTE: Patrick Henry said, “ . .. But, Sir, give me leave to demand, what right had they to say, ‘We, the People? If the States be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great consolidated National Government of the people of all the states.” [SOURCE: The Myth and The Reality, by The Informer, page25.]

27. Why did the aristocrats meet in secret to discuss the Constitution?

ANSWER: The Founding Fathers were in very big trouble. They were wealthy men, who had credit with the King via The Crown. They owed contractual debts, which the King expected them to pay. The Crown fronted the money for the King’s enterprise, so the International Bankers would hold the King responsible for that debt, if the colonists refused to pay their debts. All were obligated to the King with written and signed contracts. The leaders in the colonies were held responsible for the rebellion (i.e., Revolutionary War). They were wealthy aristocrats, who also had large parcels of land, huge estates, and other revenue producing businesses back in the old country. The Vatican controlled King placed the wealthy aristocrats into a political ‘checkmate’. The King sent them a choice. They could lose everything they owned in Europe, or they could quietly go along with a form of government that would allow the King to manipulate the future, on behalf of The Crown, for profit, and the aristocrats would go along with a lie to the people, which was to tell them they won the war. The wealthy men chose to deceive the public. They were told to Witness their agreement on the compact document to pledge that they would cooperate with the King. The compact was called “The Constitution for the United States”, which is duly stated in paragraph number one of the document. [SOURCE: The Myth and The Reality, by The Informer, pages 22-24]

NOTICE the words “for the United, because these men did something on behalf of unsuspecting fellow countrymen. The public school system and elected officials have created a wonderful myth for us to believe about the derivation of the Constitution, but it was not an honorable meeting.

28. Who actually wrote the Constitution?

ANSWER: The Vatican along with The Crown drafted the constitution, and the King’s agents delivered it to the aristocrats in America for witnessing. [SOURCE: The Myth and The Reality, by The Informer, Pages 22-27.]

29. How did the Constitution protect The Crown’s investments in America?

ANSWER: Article VI of the Constitution states: “All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution as under the Confederation. . . ”

30. When did the United States actually come into existence?

ANSWER: The website for the Central Intelligence Agency states: “Britain’s American colonies broke with the mother country in 1776 and were recognized as the new nation of the United States of America following the Treaty of Paris in 1783.”

NOTICE: The USA was not official for seven years after the announced “victory” of the Revolutionary War.

31. What were the terms of the Treaty of Paris in 1783?

QUOTE:

The Ten Articles of the Treaty of 1783

Courtesy of the National Archives and Records Administration.

Preface. Declares the treaty to be “in the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity,” states the bona fides of the signatories, and declares the intention of both parties to “forget all past misunderstandings and differences” and “secure to both perpetual peace and harmony.”

1. Acknowledging the Thirteen Colonies to be free, sovereign and independent States, and that the British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquish claims to the Government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof;[2]

2. Establishing the boundaries between the United States and British North America (for an account of two strange anomalies resulting from this part of the Treaty, based on inaccuracies in the Mitchell Map—see Northwest Angle and the Republic of Indian Stream);

3. Granting fishing rights to United States fishermen in the Grand Banks, off the coast of Newfoundland and in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence;

4. Recognizing the lawful contracted debts to be paid to creditors on either side;

5. The Congress of the Confederation will “earnestly recommend” to state legislatures to recognize the rightful owners of all confiscated lands “provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated belonging to real British subjects [Loyalists]”;

6. United States will prevent future confiscations of the property of Loyalists;

7. Prisoners of war on both sides are to be released and all property left by the British army in the United States unmolested (including slaves);

8. Great Britain and the United States were each to be given perpetual access to the Mississippi River;

9. Territories captured by Americans subsequent to treaty will be returned without compensation;

10. Ratification of the treaty was to occur within six months from the signing by the contracting parties.

* Spain received East and West Florida under the separate Anglo-Spanish peace agreement

[SOURCE: Wikipedia.com]

32. Who was the “most holy and undivided Trinity” that is mentioned in the declaration paragraph of the Treaty of 1783?

ANSWER: The Vatican, the King of England, and The Crown (i.e., international bankers). [SOURCE: The Myth and The Reality, by The Informer, Page 100]

33. What is the legal definition of the word “church”?

ANSWER: A simple definition of church would be that it is a business.

QUOTE: “Church–In its most general sense, the religious society founded and established by Jesus Christ, to receive, preserve, and propagate His doctrines and ordinances. It may also mean a body of communicants gathered into church order; body or community of Christians, united under one form of government by the profession of the same faith and observance of the same ritual and ceremonies; place where persons regularly assemble for worship; congregation; organization for religious purposes; religious society or body; the clergy or officialdom of a religious body.” [Black’s Law Dictionary]

34. What is the legal definition of the word “business”?

QUOTE: “. . . Enterprise in which person engaged shows willingness to invest time and capital on future outcome. Doggett v Burnet, 62 App.D.C. 103, 65 F.2d 191, 194.” [Black’s Law Dictionary]

35. Is the United States actually a church organization, an extension of the Vatican?

ANSWER: Yes.

QUOTE: “If North Carolina is only a geographical place in America in which the State resides along with you, who is supreme? Is not the State a corporate religion? Is the Lord a religion? I think not. Are there many religions in the State? To be recognized as a religion do not those religions have to register with the IRS/FED/STATE team to get a 501c-3 exemption? This goes against what the “government” preaches, that being, church and State separation. Government drones are hypocrites, because to be a church you must be controlled by the very State that boasts that church and State must not mix. This is where logical minds do not prevail in the masses and they have no reasoning or common sense. Who then is the master, if the State will not recognize the religion, if not licensed? So one religion controls all others through license. Shades of merry ole England and the Crown that controlled all religions before the what, revolutionary war? But what if you are under another “church” called government? The Lord said he set His Church upon this Rock, meaning he set His GOVERNMENT upon this earth, NOT some church building or religion . . . you can see why the State is telling you that they can’t mix the Church (Government) of the Lord and the State’s government (church?). How fatuous to believe we are free people and can worship the Almighty and follow His laws without the Crown interfering; paying taxes to a rogue IRS that cannot be proven to be created by the legislature and which operates through fear, extortion, threats, killings, jailing, seizures, suicides and the like to keep everyone in bondage to pay a tribute to the elite integrationists using England as a front since it too went bankrupt before the United States did in 1861. . . [The New History of America, by The Informer, Pages 16-17]

End of Part 3. To be continued …

Disclaimer: These interrogatories are not intended as legal advice, nor do they offer any political suggestions to the reader. All verification is left to the reader. The interrogatories by this author are an academic attempt to digest the evidence and instruction found in many sources, and especially in two books entitled: The Myth and The Reality; and A New History for America. The Informer has displayed tremendous intellectual fortitude with his serious scientific analysis of the evidence throughout written history of the events up to, during, and following the Revolutionary War. The conclusions are breath-taking upon the first reading, because the evidence demands huge paradigm shifts in knowledge structure and assumption. Americans have no idea who they really are on a global scale, how their Courts came into being, nor why they keep losing nonexistent “Rights.” Well, it is time to ask some very good questions and seek truthful answers. LEARN.

Interrogatories about the Constitution and American Law
By R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences

Part 4

OBJECTIVE: If you do not know where you came from, then you certainly cannot know where you are going. It is time to review history and pull together some of the lesser known facts for edification and purification of what America was, is and chooses to become. Seek the Truth, and then you will become aware of the shackles on your ankles and the blinders on your eyes.
36. Was the U.S. Constitution “ratified” or “adopted”?

ANSWER: It was adopted.

QUOTE: [Preamble to the Bill of Rights – “THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution …”

37. What is the difference between “ratified” and “adopted” in legal terminology?

ANSWER:

“Adopt. To accept, appropriate, choose, or select. To make that one’s own (property or act) which was not so originally. To accept, consent to, and put into effective operation; as in the case of a constitution, constitutional amendment, ordinance, court rule, or by-law.”

“Ratify. To approve and sanction; to make valid; to confirm; to give sanction to. To authorize or otherwise approve, retroactively, an agreement or conduct either, expressly or by implication.”

[SOURCE: Black’s Law Dictionary]

38. Why did the wealthy aristocrats choose to adopt the compact called “The Constitution for the United States”, which was sent to them by the Vatican via the King of England on behalf of The Crown?

ANSWER: The King had the leaders of the colonies in a ‘checkmate.’ They owed him money.

QUOTE: “In March of 1775 the Pennsylvania Assembly borrowed money and issued bills of Credit without authorization of either King or [appointed] Governor.” [The New History of America by The Informer, Page 7]

QUOTE from Our Enemy the State, by Albert J. Nock:

“ . . . More than half the delegates to the constitutional convention in 1787 were either investors or speculators in the public funds. Probably sixty percent of the values represented by these securities were fictitious, and were so regarded even by their holders.

QUOTE from The New History of America, by The Informer, Pages 31-33:

“They also had many land holdings and businesses in Europe . . . Well, they won independence from the King until the King wanted all his money he invested in his British colonies, now called the confederate states. If the British Board of Trade was concerned in 1700 about losing wealth, then this was the time for them to take control of the situation. After all, paper money was being printed in just about every confederate state, thereby wiping out the Bank of England’s control of the wealth. The Treaty of 1606 still existed, (see James Montgomery’s work) so the King gave the ultimatum to the ‘men.’ . . .

“America had no navy to defend the waters. It was dependent on the trading with foreign countries of Europe using British trading ships. America was not yet self sufficient. The King knowing this said to the men, I will seize all your property and business in England, under escheat. I will run a blockade on the ocean and allow no trading to be carried on. I will have total control in the amount of time your stores run out due to lack of trade. They knew it was just a matter of time for this to happen, so, they agreed to cut a deal.

“This deal was to make the confederation appear to be very frail so they could draft up a compact. This compact would suck in all the states in which the states would be forbidden to use their own paper money. The corporate States, which you did not create, were bound to pay their debts in silver, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1. But, it cannot extend to the people, they can use anything they want. Now you can understand a little better what I stated near the beginning about the British Board of Trade controlling the whole works. . . As Patrick Henry stated, are you starting to ‘Smell a Rat?’

“ Is it any wonder why the ‘We, the People’ rushed to seal the deal between the King and themselves, leaving us the little people in the dark? . . This would allow the British Board of Trade to use its international banking cartel to again control the trade through the use of its paper notes. In exchange the King would solidify, by two more treaties, under the compact/agreement of the new Constitution, his hold on his property in America. England was very near bankruptcy and had to hold onto its holdings in America. Being business men, the ‘We’s’ jumped at the offer and a ‘new constitution’ was formed. It was formed by “WE the People.” Was the We the People the 75% of the people in America? No! The “We the People” were only those that drafted the Constitution, therefore the need for the capital P in People. …

“So after all the smoke cleared the people had a new King and some vice-admirals called governors of each of the political subdivision. Those in power still ruled the 75% of the masses that didn’t give a darn.”

End of Part 4 . . . to be continued

Disclaimer: These interrogatories are not intended as legal advice, nor do they offer any political suggestions to the reader. All verification is left to the reader. The interrogatories by this author are an academic attempt to digest the evidence and instruction found in many sources, and especially in two books entitled: The Myth and The Reality; and A New History for America. The Informer has displayed tremendous intellectual fortitude with his serious scientific analysis of the evidence throughout written history of the events leading up to, during, and following the Revolutionary War. The conclusions are breath-taking upon the first reading, because the evidence demands huge paradigm shifts in knowledge structure and assumption. Americans have no idea who they really are on a global scale, how their Courts came into being, nor why they keep losing nonexistent “Rights.” Well, it is time to ask some very good questions and seek truthful answers. LEARN.

Interrogatories about the Constitution and American Law

By R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences

Part 5

OBJECTIVE: If you do not know where you came from, then you certainly cannot know where you are going. It is time to review history and pull together some of the lesser known facts for edification and purification of what America was, is and chooses to become. This is important.

39. What are the divisions of American Jurisprudence?

ANSWER: There are two major divisions: Tort Law and Contract Law. [Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier. Section 013.]

QUOTE: In Section 018, Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier states:

“In general terms, both American Jurisprudence and Nature that it is modeled after are divided into actions that fall generally under Tort Law and Contract Law.. . . For a presentation of the history of the bifurcation of Law into Tort and Contract going back into 1200 A.D., see C.H.S. Fifoot in HISTORY AND SOURCES OF THE COMMON LAW, TORT AND CONTRACT; [Stevens and Sons, London (1949)].

40. What is the difference between Tort Law and Contract Law?

QUOTE: In Sections 018-021 , Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier states:

“Very simply, Contract Law applies to govern a settlement of a grievance whenever a contract is in effect. This means that only certain types of very narrow arguments are allowed to be plead in Contract Law grievances, since only the content of the contract is of any relevance in the grievance settlement . . .”Commercial contracts are born, live and then die, in their own strata, without the Constitution offering any significant restrainment on Legislative intervention . . .In contrast . . . we have Tort Law. Think of Tort Law as being a Judgment Law to settle grievances between persons where there are damages, but without any contract in effect between the parties.”

EXAMPLES of Contract Law: (1) Securities law, (2) Estate Inheritance law, (3) Quasi-Contracts, etc.

EXAMPLES of Tort Law: (1) Civil Rights, (2) Wrongful Death, (3) Product Liability, (4) Aviation law, (5) Personal Injury, (6) Accident Recovery, (7) Professional Malpractice, (8) Unfair Competition, (9) Admiralty and Maritime Torts, (10) Fraud and Anti-Trust actions, etc.

QUOTE: Wigmore, Select Cases on the Law of Torts, page vii (1912 states:

“Never did a Name so obstruct a true understanding of the Thing. To such a plight has it brought us that a favorite mode of defining a Tort is to declare merely that it is not a Contract. As if a man were to define Chemistry by pointing out that it is not Physics or Mathematics.”

41. What are the three main parts of a binding contractual agreement?

ANSWER: The three parts of a binding contract are: Offer, Acceptance, and Consideration.

Explanation: (1) An Offer must be made to someone else, (2) .the Offer must be voluntarily Accepted, and (3) if both parties “voluntarily give, exchange, perform, or promise one another something of value, then you’ve got Consideration. [SOURCE: Law for Dummies, by John Ventura, JD, Page 16]

QUOTE: In Section 013 of, Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier states:

“ … A perfect, well-rounded contract requires not only a promise and a Consideration, but a participation by each party in both of these elements . . .” – Edward Bennett in Considerations Moving From Third Persons in 9 Harvard law Review 233, at 233 (1895).

QUOTE: In Section 001 of, Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier states:

“Whenever there is an exchange of benefits and there remains some lingering expectations of some duty between two parties, then an actual INVISIBLE CONTRACT is in effect . . . as it is said that the duty owed back to the party initially transferring the benefits is RECIPROCAL in nature.”

42. Is there a legal difference between “signing” and “witnessing” a document?

ANSWER: Yes.

QUOTE: “Sign –To affix one’s name to a writing or instrument, for the purpose of authenticating or executing it, or to give it effect as one’s act. . . To make any mark, as upon a document, in token of knowledge, approval acceptance, or obligation.”

QUOTE: “Witness – In general, one who, being present, personally sees or perceives a thing; a beholder, spectator, or eyewitness. . . One who testifies to what he has seen, heard, or otherwise observed. . . A person attesting genuiness of signature to document by adding his signature. .. One who is called upon to be present at a transaction, or the making of a will. . . “ [Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition]

43. Was The United States Constitution “signed” or was it “witnessed?”

ANSWER: Read the document. It states, “Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth in Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names, . . .”

NOTE: Remember in Part 3, Item 25, one learned the difference between “We, the People” and “We, the people.” The constitution was created for and witnessed by a specific body of men, and it did not apply to the more general population, which is clearly noted in the way it uses capital letters.

44. Did the men who “witnessed” The United States Constitution participating in the beginning of a “con job” for the colonists which continues today?

ANSWER: Yes.

QUOTE from Edmond Burke in March 22, 1775 with his Speech on Conciliation with America:

“. . . 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 toward 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; tey can 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.”

End of Part 5. To be continued …

Disclaimer: These interrogatories are not intended as legal advice, nor do they offer any political suggestions to the reader. All verification is left to the reader. The interrogatories by this author are an academic attempt to digest the evidence and instruction found in many sources, and especially in two books entitled: The Myth and The Reality; and A New History for America. The Informer has displayed tremendous intellectual fortitude with his serious scientific analysis of the evidence throughout written history of the events up to, during, and following the Revolutionary War. The conclusions are breath-taking upon the first reading, because the evidence demands huge paradigm shifts in knowledge structure and assumption. Americans have no idea who they really are on a global scale, how their Courts came into being, nor why they keep losing nonexistent “Rights.” Well, it is time to ask some very good questions and seek truthful answers. LEARN.

Interrogatories about the Constitution and American Law

By R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences

Part 6

OBJECTIVE: If you do not know where you came from, then you certainly cannot know where you are going. It is time to review history and pull together some of the lesser known facts for edification and purification of what America was, is and chooses to become. This is important.

45. What are the legal jurisdictions mentioned by the United States Constitution and what is involved in each?

ANSWER: Common Law, Equity Law, and Admiralty/Maritime Law. [Source: UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman, page 5]

Common Law. “In general, it is a body of law that develops and derives through judicial decisions, as distinguished from legislative enactments. The ‘common law’ is all the statutory and case law background of England and the American colonies before the American revolution.” [Source: Black’s Law Dictionary]

LAYMEN definition: There is no Compelled Law. Covers a damages. This is Criminal law.

Equity Jurisdiction. “In a general sense, the jurisdiction belonging to a court of equity..” [Source: Black’s Law Dictionary]

LAYMEN definition: One is compelled to perform to the letter of any contract. This is CIVIL law.

Admiralty law and Maritime Law. Involves commerce on the High Seas and International Contracts. Involves Compelled Performance with Criminal Penalties.

46. Is there a difference between Admiralty Law and Maritime Law?

ANSWER: Yes.

(1) Admiralty Law. Commerce on the high seas that involves the King (i.e., government).

QUOTE: Admiralty is a subdivision of King’s Commerce such that all of King’s Commerce that takes place over waterways and the High Seas . .. Is assigned to be governed by a special set of grievance settlement and evidentiary rules, just custom tailored to Commerce of that nature . . . at least that was the case in the old days when Admiralty was once restricted to govern legitimate business transactions with the King out on the High Seas. . .. On land, assigning fault and making partial recovery by the responsible party is quite common, but not so out on the High Seas. So this special marine jurisdiction (and ‘jurisdiction’ meaning here is simply a special set of rules) was developed organically, piece by piece and sometimes Case by Case . . . Also, some of the other special rules applicable to grievances brought into a Court of Admiralty are that there is no jury in Admiralty–NEVER– everything is handled summarily before a Judge in chronologically compressed proceedings. Also, there are no fixed rules of law or evidence (meaning that it is somewhat like an Administrative Proceeding in the sense that it is a gree-wheeling evidentiary jurisdiction–anything goes). SOURCE: Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier, Section 383]

(2) Law Merchant. “Commerce on the high seas that does not involve the King (i.e. government).”

QUOTE: “The system of law which particularly relates to marine commerce and navigation, to business transacted at sea or relating to navigation, to ships and shipping, to seamen, to the transportation of persons and property by sea, and to marine affairs generally. “ [Black’s Law Dictionary]

47. How did Admiralty Law become the jurisdiction in the Federal Courts?

ANSWER: Federal Reserve Notes

QUOTE: “Up until the mid-1800s here in the United States, very frequently merchants paid off each other in gold coins and company notes . .. It was infrequent that the King had an involvement with private Maritime Commerce. And there was an easy-to-see distinction in effect back then between Maritime Jurisdiction contracts that involved private parties . . . and Admiralty Jurisdiction, which applied to Commercial contracts where the King was a party. . .. However, today in the United States, all Commercial contracts that private parties enter into whith each other that are under Maritime Jurisdiction, are now also under Admiralty: Reason: The beneficial use and recirculation of Federal Reserve Notes makes the King an automatic silent Equity third party to the arrangements.” [Source: Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier, Section 390]

QUOTE: “This concept of using Admiralty as a slick tool for Revenue Raising is an important concept to understand, as this procedure to raise revenue through an invisible Admiralty Contract is now surfacing in the United States in the very last place where anyone would think a marine based jurisdictional environment belongs: On your Internal Revenue Service’s 1040 form. . . “ [Source: Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier, Section 396]

48. How does one become financially entangled in the Admiralty Law system in the USA?

ANSWER: The Birth Certificate combined with the adult who performs Acceptance of Benefits.

QUOTE: “But later through a Federal Judge, I realized that there are special financial benefits that persons documented as being politically enfranchised at birth, experience later on as adults, when they are being shaken down for a smooth Federal looting; and it is this Acceptance of Benefits as adults, in the context of reciprocity being expected back in return, that attaches contract tax liability, and not the existence of a Birth Certificate document itself. . . As a point of beginning, one person cannot bind another. But most importantly, all the Birth Certificate and correlative documents in the world will not separate a dime in taxation from you until such time as you, individually, and personally, have started to accept juristic benefits.” [Source: Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier, Section 411]

QUOTE: “Remember that when benefits are being accepted in the context of reciprocity being expected back in return, then there lies a good tight contract.” {Source: Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier, Section 412]

49. What is Statutory Law?

ANSWER: Codified Merchant Law.

QUOTE: Statutory Law. “That body of law created by acts of the legislature in contrast to constitutional law and law generated by decisions of courts and administrative bodies.” [Source: Black’s Law Dictionary]

QUOTE: “The word “colorable” means something that appears to be genuine, but is not. Maybe it looks like a dollar, and maybe it spends like a dollar, but if it is not redeemable for lawful money (silver or gold) it is “colorable.” If a Federal Reserve Note is used in a contract, then the contract becomes a “colorable” contract. And “colorable” contracts must be enforced under a “colorable jurisdiction.” So by creating Federal Reserve Notes, the government had to create a jurisdiction to cover the kinds of contracts, which use them. We now have what is called Statutory Jurisdiction, which is not a genuine Admiralty jurisdiction. It is “colorable” Admiralty Jurisdiction the judges are enforcing because we are using “colorable money.” Colorable Admiralty is now known as Statutory Jurisdiction.” [UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman, page 6]

50. What happened in 1938 that revolutionized American jurisprudence?

QUOTE from a judge to an attorney: “Name any decision of the Supreme Court after 1938 and I’ll honor it, but all the decisions you read were prior to 1938, and I don’t honor those decisions. Prior to 1938, the Supreme Court was dealing with Public Law; since 1938, the Supreme Court has dealt with Public Policy. . . .” [UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman, page 3]

QUOTE by the attorney: “I found that 1938 was the year of the Erie Railroad v. Tompkins case of the Supreme Court. It was also the year the courts claim they blended Law with Equity. I read the Erie Railroad case . .. The district court had decided on the basis of Commercial (Negotiable Instruments) Law: That this man was not under any contract with the Erie Railroad, and therefore he had no standing to sue the company . .. This overturned a standing decision of over one hundred years . .. In the Erie Railroad case, the Supreme Court ruled that all federal cases would be judged under the Negotiable Instruments Law. There would be no more decisions based on the Common Law at the federal level . .. All our courts since 1938 were merchant Law courts and not Common Law courts.” [UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman, page 4]

51. Why did the USA judges abandon Public Law and switch to Public Policy for decisions?

QUOTE from a Judge: “In 1938, all the higher judges, the top attorneys and the U.S. attorneys were called into a secret meeting and this is what we were told: America is a bankrupt nation–it is owned completely by its creditors. The creditors own the Congress, they own the Executive, they own the Judiciary and they own all the state governments. Take a silent judicial notice of this fact, but never reveal it openly. Your court is operating in an Admiralty Jurisdiction–call it anything you want, but do not call it Admiralty.” [UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman, page 4]

QUOTE from a Judge: “The reason they cannot call it Admiralty Jurisdiction is that your defense would be quite different in Admiralty Jurisdiction from your defense under the Common Law. In Admiralty, there is no court, which has jurisdiction unless there is a valid international contract in dispute. If you know it is Admiralty Jurisdiction, and they have admitted on the record that you are in an Admiralty Court, you can demand that the international maritime contract, to which you are supposedly a party, and which you supposedly have breached, be placed into evidence No court has Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction unless there is a valid international maritime contract that has been breached. So you say, just innocently like a lamb, ‘Well, I never knew that I got involved with an international maritime contract, so I deny that such a contract exists. If this court is taking jurisdiction in Admiralty, then place the contract in evidence, so that I may challenge the validity of the contract. What they would have to do is palce the national debt into evidence. They would have to admit that the international bankers own the whole nation, and that we are their slaves.”” [UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman, page 5]

52. For what are the international bankers waiting if the nation is bankrupted?

QUOTE by an attorney: “But the bankers said it is not expedient at this time (i.e., 1980s) to admit that they own everything and could foreclose on every nation of the world. The reason they don’t want to tell everyone that they own everything is that there are still too many privately owned guns. There are uncooperative armies and other military forces. So until they can gradually consolidate all armies into a World Army and all courts into a single World Court, it is not expedient to admit the jurisdiction the courts are operating under. . .” [UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman, page 5]

Disclaimer: These interrogatories are not intended as legal advice, nor do they offer any political suggestions to the reader. All verification is left to the reader. The interrogatories by this author are an academic attempt to digest the evidence and instruction found in many sources, and especially in two books entitled: The Myth and The Reality; and A New History for America. The Informer has displayed tremendous intellectual fortitude with his serious scientific analysis of the evidence throughout written history of the events up to, during, and following the Revolutionary War. The conclusions are breath-taking upon the first reading, because the evidence demands huge paradigm shifts in knowledge structure and assumption. Americans have no idea who they really are on a global scale, how their Courts came into being, nor why they keep losing nonexistent “Rights.” Well, it is time to ask some very good questions and seek truthful answers. LEARN.

The UHM questionable source

December 9, 2015

I want to point out that the UHM has become a disinfo site. Always has been actually. Albeit one of the best truthing sources I’ve ever seen. But not the best. The INFOMRER and James Montgomery take that prize. With David William Parker coming at second place.. Of course the Bible, the NEW TESTAMENT AND THE WORDS OF YESHUA ARE SUPERIOR OVER ALL TRUTHS OF THIS WORLD..

“SUPPORT THE {SATANIC} PROMETHEANS {SHIT SHOW} & THE BRICS BANK IT’S OUR ONLY HOPE FOR HUMANITY{HUMANS ARE COMPROMISED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ONCE KNOWN AS THE CREATORS MANKIND}. THE {AGAINST THE SATANIC} ZEUSIAN ARISTOTELIANS{SHIT SHOW} MUST BE STOPPED”

They are all playing you. and apparently the UHM as well.

Putin Hopes “There Will Be No Need To Nuke” The Islamic State

Tyler Durden’s pictureSubmitted by Tyler Durden on 12/08/2015 22:28 -0500
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-08/putin-hopes-there-will-be-no-need-nuke-islamic-state

“Why did Putin use a submarine to fire these missiles and not a warship or a land based missile launcher? Quite simply Putin is showing force and giving NATO a stern warning especially when he mentioned that these missiles could deliver a nuclear payload. Putin wouldn’t waste a nuclear weapon on genuine independent terrorists but if pushed to the limit he would against NATO rogues. Putin isn’t weak and right now Russia is the true superpower of planet Earth. Putin is trying to delay any war action so he has enough time to bring in a new economic system as he collapses this current bankrupt Trans-Atlantic monetary system. If push comes to shove rest assured that Putin will once again put the wind up the New Venice Empire rogues. The plan would also be to put all your defenses in place so when you have to hit the Empire you can totally destroy their attack and defense systems with your weapons both physical and electronic.”—UHM

Here’s why, Mystery Babylon headed by the Vatican and elite ancient bloodlines families living in Europe are not broke. And that Putin is in their service. This is all theatre.

They have created the economies that so called economic analysts are observing.

The USG holds enough real resource assets vs its debt which it’s subject citizen serfs are legally contracted for the debts repayment. They’re breaking YOU, not themselves as they’re holding all of the real resource assets, including you HUMAN RESOURCES as collateral..It’s the worst corporate portfolio on the planet for YOU not them..Being debt free is key, not using their banking houses is important. Not wasting your time following their trivial pursuits political charades theatre unless you enjoy comedy is important. They own all property, including YOU since settlement began here, 1663-1763-1783-1814-1870-1933.. It is all well documented. The problem is failing at DISCOVERY. The problem is not comprehending the legal term Constitutor: “In the civil law, one who, by simple agreement, becomes responsible for the payment of another’s debt.”[Blacks Law Dictionary 5th Edition page 282] Which is anyone not of the posterity of We the Signatories of this International compact contract oh wait Constitution..

Agreed upon by the Family of Nations in 1783 where the King was promised repayment for his investment in settlement of this “Colony”, thus America is still a British Colony.. Under Article 4 of the Paris Treaty it states “It is agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted.” So America went to peace by agreeing to pay their debts. Then they signed the Articles of Confederation which also guaranteed the re-payment of that debt under Article 3 which stated under The Articles of Confederation Article XII “All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed, and debts contracted by, or under the authority of Congress, before the assembling of the United States, in pursuance of the present confederation, shall be deemed and considered as a charge against the United States, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said United States, and the public faith are hereby solemnly pledged.”

The Problem was that the states weren’t paying their debts under the Articles of Confederation so they reorganized. This is what Washington was having a problem with. He couldn’t get them to pay. So what did they do? On September 17, 1787 Nine State delegates approve the Constitution. The other four states silently acquiesced and it was ratified despite the rules under the articles of confederation of a unanimous decision. [Anti-Federalist Papers]The States have now become Constitutors. Ahh, responsible for the debts of another…

The economics of warfare goes like this. For George to send ships across the Atlantic spreads his resources thin with his war with Louis at his door steps. So rather than spend more to gain little. He simply defeats France because once he does he now owns everything France had, he owns France, he becomes the King of France. Actually I think technically he already was which is likely why he was fighting with Louis in the first place. But it doesn’t really matter because at the end of the day. Louis use to own the US debt, or the debt of the colonies, now King George owns it. So Washington won the battle over Lord Wellington. King George won the war over the United States. So not only is the United States A Country Defeated in Victory, The United States is Still a British Colony.

In King George’s “infinite wisdom”, he honored it. The 56 men that stood up, he honored. Essentially saying that, ‘you 56 men, you are truly sovereign, but “sovereigns without subjects with none to govern but yourselves…” Why? well at the time, they had not secured the taxing power yet. Those that did not pledge, that did not “come out of her my people” and “-to assume among the powers of the earth a separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s Creator entitle them.” They all still belonged to the King. There were no official “Americans” until the John Jay Treaty. When the Framers finally did acquire the taxing power of the sovereign and foist their debt onto the now former British subjects. Thomas Jefferson at the time having to erase the word subjects and replace it with citizens, probably to maintain the facade, just as they do today. Further research in etymology and law dictionaries reveal that the word “citizen” translates into “world-slave” and means subject. Welcome to the American aristocracy. Welcome to the History of the Great American Fortunes.

WELCOME TO THE FRAUD PERPETUATED AGAINST MANKIND IN 1783.

Also the Satanic elite aren’t interested in inheriting a nuclear wasteland.

Ive simply seen enough of the UHMs over moderation censorship, haughty superior assholiness along with promoting Putin who is one of the boys playing god over mankind. Putin is just another liar.

WAR POWERS TODAY IN AMERICA

November 10, 2015

WAR POWERS TODAY IN AMERICA

By the principles applied in 1862
FALLACY & MYTH of PEOPLE BEING THE SOVEREIGN and that the Constitution was created by the common man.

By The Informer

In reading the Book WAR POWERS, by Whiting, who was the Solicitor General of the War Department of The United States, published in 1864, it does not come as a shock to me that we are nothing but slaves of Congress, AKA United States. Whiting was Lincoln point man and developed the basis for Lincolns justification of the War Policies. Whiting teamed up with Francis 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, his position that he held, was never replaced.

A little prelude to the book by John Yoo, War Powers Under the Constitution of the United States, Author William Whiting.

An introduction by John Yoo, Professor of Law, Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkley: JD., 1992, Yale Law School; AB., 1989, Harvard University who teaches and writes in the areas of constitutional law.

Upon opening this book, the tenth edition of William Whiting’s War Powers under the Constitution of The United States the reader may be surprised . . .. If anything, Whiting’s work helps remove the blinders that a half century of controversy over undeclared wars- from Korea to Vietnam to Panama to the Persian Gulf- has placed over the eyes of the legal profession. Born on March 3, 1813 in Concorde, Mass., he attended Harvard and got his law degree in 1838. As a Boston attorney, Whiting became known as so masterful a trial lawyer that, in his day, the Common Pleas Court was sometimes called “Whitings Court”. The Boston lawyer began writing in support of the Lincoln administration’s arrests of suspected sympathizers of the rebellion. As the war proceeded, Whiting joined the War Department as Solicitor at the request of President Lincoln himself. No doubt it had to do with Whitings publication, in 1862 in Boston. Whatever the reason for his appointment, Whiting became the point man for the Lincoln administration on the difficult and delicate constitutional issues that arose from the war.

Whiting joined a truly exceptional group of lawyers who would create many of the theories of the independent presidency and the national security state that would reappear in the middle of the twentieth century. In addition to patent officer Peter Wilson, Whiting was joined by former cabinet member and first judge advocate general Joseph Holt, international law scholar, and Francis Leiber, and Eathan Allen Hitchcock and Henry W. Halleck, both lawyers who became generals, the latter becoming General in Chief in 1862.

In Whiting’s documents he developed the legal theories that would justify Lincolns measures to conduct the war successfully on both the war front and home front; he also took a prominent role in publicly disseminating and explaining these views.

One of the best students of Lincoln and of the Civil War, Pulitzer Prize–winning historian- Mark E. Neely, even suggests that it was Whiting’s first pamphlet, War Powers and the President, that convinced Lincoln that as commander in chief he could abolish slavery in the rebellious states. Until reading Whiting’s works, Neely suggests, Lincoln had been reluctant to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.

It is perhaps a tribute to Whiting’s success that no successor was ever appointed to his position upon his resignation in 1865. His ardent support for the Republican Party continued after leaving government service. In 1868 he served as presidential elector for Ulysses S. Grant, and in 1872 he was overwhelmingly elected to Congress by the third district of Massachusetts. Death at age sixty, however, prevented Whiting from joining the legislative body that he had once worked with as a member of the executive branch.

End of prelude.

Contrary to what many people believe, the term United States is NOT separate and distinct from the term United States of America, because 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 rule of grammar 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. So one, to be grammatically correct, 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 United States. A very simple proof is when the TV airs the State of the Union message. The President is announced as always, “I now present the President of the United States.” It is never announced, I now present 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.

Since I have shown previously 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 Sovereigns. This sovereign status is claimed to be 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 take it as gospel truth. This myth is what has caused much dissention among the vast majority of people and even to cause infighting amongst people called “patriots”, “militia” and others of like mind.

This War Powers book is just another support for my research and others such as Mr. Montgomery. I will lead into this myth by quoting this great authority on War Powers and what he had to say back in 1864. This will be very short and as I read through the book I will add to his work to further show the 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 alleged 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 and 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 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 dating back to 1787, UNLESS your relatives were one of 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—Dr. Eugene Schroder did excellent research on this at the time I was also researching this material. I decided that since Mr. Schroder was doing this it would be redundant to do the same research, so I proceeded back to Lincoln to research the war powers back then. I had asked about 10 good researchers if they knew of the War Powers Acts, specifically 12 Stat 319 and none had researched it in order to give me any answers. But, 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, which is you today.

The original draft was by the Federal Reserve System, NOT Congress, and can be found in President Hoover’s Papers that can be obtained from any Federal Depository. On March 3, 1933, President Hoover said it was unconstitutional and refused to implement what the Federal Reserve Board drafted. Immediately after taking office on March 4, 1933, the first thing Roosevelt did after implementing what Hoover refused, 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 documentation 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. My mother and father, both deceased, told me that they never had to get a license until 1936. 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, it was in actuality a means of licensing the “enemy” to track their commerce under the Trading Acts with the newly revised 1917 Trading with the enemy act.

This enemy surveillance is very evident today by the use of what should be termed the Social Slave number but is 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 in 1974 all was repealed EXCEPT for section 5(b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917. 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 as statutes passed as a direct and immediate result of declared emergencies. You will see how this is done as you read through this memorandum of mine.

This is totally under military powers of the Commander in Chief, The President. This military Rule allows the civil government to operate as it has, only it all comes under administrative directives of the Commander In Chief. This explains the reason all courts fly the Executives Commander In Chief gold fringe flag and Federal courts have stationary using 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 just made you the enemy of the banking cartel to protect them. That is why the private banking system Board can do what they want 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, but don’t, that you assume the debt of the United States. This is unconscionable under the commercial law that you were never informed. This is your promise, assumpsit in legal terms, which obligates and binds you to pay the debt of the United States by becoming the surety. Remember all Banks controlled by the Federal Reserve System are agents of the United States Treasury.

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 chose 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 by the enemy, AKA the people of America. This is a very insidious scheme that people have no idea exists. In fact I have found and written on the fact that in Title 31 it states that banks can collect taxes on the 1040 form that is presented to them.

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, EXCEPT, when instituted under constitutional war power it became constitutional. Then in order to control the banks in each of the separate states, which Congress could not do under the Constitution in time of peace, 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 dared 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 this in mind that the Commander in Chief can operate within the Constitution when military rule under the Emergency Powers Act is invoked; we move to Lincolns 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 a group of aristocracy that was called Congress. From the beginning, this is the foundation that has caused people to slowly lose what rights they THOUGHT they had, but the plan was to get where we are today without a major rebellion by the people.

This almost took place in 1861 with the Southern States wanting to secede from the Union, and 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 he invoked it Congress could do nothing to stop it and the Courts, under this Act cannot stop it at all as you will see why in End Note 17.

My comments, are placed in [brackets] so you know they are not from the Book. All other comments and information are end noted so as to keep the flow of the book in order. Every jot and tittle is duplicated as in the Book. So with that in mind let us move to the Book.

WAR POWERS

Chapter I–THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE GOVERNMENT TO APPROPRIATE PRIVATE PROPERTY TO PUBLIC USE, EITHER IN TIME OF PEACE OR IN TIME OF WAR.

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.

See END Note #1

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, orby 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.See END Note #2

THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE ALL SUBJECTS TO DO MILITARY DUTY.

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.

See END Note #3

“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.

See END Note #4

“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.”

See END Note #5

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 questioned.

“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.”

See END Note #6

REFERENCES AS TO THE CONSTITUTION, SHOWING THE WAR POWERS OF CONGRESS

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 may 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 tranquillity; provide for the common defense; promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”
See END Note #7

RULES OF INTERPRETATION
“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.”

ARE THE UNITED STATES AT WAR?

“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.”
See END Note #8

“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

See END Note #9

THE LAW OF NATIONS IS ABOVE THE CONSTITUTION

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 as expressed in end note #9 and hundreds of thousands of people in this country every year]

CAPTURE BY TITLE
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 enemys 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.

THESE PROVISIONS NOT APPLICABLE TO A STATE OF WAR
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;.

TRUE APPLICATION OF THESE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES
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.

See END Note #10

WHETHER BELLIGERENTS SHOULD BE ALLOWED CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER

THE CONSTITUTION DEPENDS UPON THE POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT

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. The South wanted to leave, not overthrow the government. The United States always talks with forked tongue and 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 to 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;.

THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS CONFISCATION
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 supposed government that you, claiming to be Sovereigns, can abolish.] 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.

See END Note #11

MILITARY GOVERNMENT UNDER MARTIAL LAW
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.

A SEVERE RULE OF BELLIGERENT LAW
“Property of persons residing in the enemys 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.

CIVIL RIGHT OF LOYAL CITIZENS IN LOYAL DISTRICTS ARE MODIFIED BY THE EXISTENCE OF 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.

See END Note #12

BELLIGERENT RIGHT TO CONFISCATE THE ENEMY’S REAL ESTATE
The belligerent right of the government to confiscate enemys 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.

THE PRESIDENT IS THE SOLE JUDGE
“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 meaning, NOT common sense meaning. This was shown when I quoted Article I Section 8 clauses.]

TECHNICAL LANGUAGE TO BE CONSTRUED TECHNICALLY.

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 Aworking 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.

See END Note #13

THE CONFISCATION ACTS OF 1862 IS NOT A BILL OF ATTAINDER,
NOR AN EX POST FACTO LAW
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 offenders 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.

ACT OF 1862, SECTION VI, DOES NOT PURPORT TO PUNISH BY TREASON
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; . ..

See END Note #14

STATE RIGHTS AND SECESSION DOCTRINES IN THE JURY ROOM
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. [Did not the Declaration of Independence give that lawful right? Think again.] 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 judgement of the jurymen upon the facts and the law, would require them to find a verdict against the United States

SYMPATHY
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!

[This is why the government stacks the jury. 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.]

LAWS ARE MOST EFFECTIVE WHICH REQUIRE NO REBEL TO ADMINISTER THEM

Those sections 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.

See END Note #15

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 it 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. [So much for people who believe the rights of the individual supersede the public AKA Government rights. Now I ask you, Are you Sovereign?]

Not only may military, but even civil, arrests be made when reasonable. Emphasis the Solicitors.

[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.]

OBJECTION THAT ARRESTS ARE MADE WITHOUT INDICTMENT

The Fifth article of the amendments to the Constitution provides that– [I let the reader obtain a copy as it is quoted here in the Book]

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.

OFFICERS MAKING ARRESTS NOT LIABLE TO CIVIL SUIT OR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

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.

MILITARY ARRESTS LAWFUL
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 navel 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.

END OF PART ONE OF WHITINGS WAR POWERS

End Note #1

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.
End Note #2

And you think that the people who fought for freedom would have written and ratified such a power to a group of mere men, Congress, by way of this Constitution that you so dearly love? Are you stating to realize something is amiss?
End Note #3

Now if you are Sovereign why do they call all subjects?

They italicized the words, not I. Without a shadow of a doubt you are slaves to Congress. Do you have to wonder anymore 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? I dont think so, and in fact it has been proven in every original constitution that no common man had a say in drafting any Constitution. The proof can be found in every State archive Building by obtaining the original writings.

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.
End Note #4

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 you 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 enemys of the “State”. Therefore, the blacks just traded masters as the belligerent power, the Congress, controlled them as enemy property as no money was paid to the original slave holders (just compensation) according to the constitution in time of peace. After all it was Congress that took the blacks in 1787 and by recognizing them as property of the slave holder actually instituted slavery of all blacks that once were “citizens” having all the rights and privileges they had before the Constitution was enacted by those in power.

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.
End Note #5

Hence the President and Congress via the Constitution took away the rights of the colored people by declaring them property. The Constitution, that you people reading 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. Well let me tell you that 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 states 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 that was 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 war power and congressional right in time of peace.

End Note #6

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 Congress people 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. I now quote from another authority. Third edition of Cases in Constitutional Law, by Cushman & Cushman. In here they quote the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Curtiss Wright Export Corporation, 299 US 304, 1936. “As a result of the separation from Great Britain by the colonies, acting as a unit, the powers of EXTERNAL sovereignty passed from the Crown not to the colonies severally, but to the colonies in their collective CORPORATE capacity as the United States of America.” I purposely emphasized the words because the Crown was still the sovereign INTERNALLY because of his corporate colonies mineral rights that he still controlled. This is found in Mr. Montgomerys research papers. The fact that the United States is a corporation, see 28 USC 3002 (15), is why the United States can seize property of anyone whenever the need arises. The evidence for this is found in:

16 USC Sec. 831x TITLE 16 CHAPTER 12A

Sec. 831x. Condemnation proceedings; institution by Corporation; venue -STATUTE-

“The Corporation may cause proceedings to be instituted for the acquisition by condemnation of any lands, easements, or rights-of-way which, in the opinion of the Corporation, are necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter. The proceedings shall be instituted in the United States district court for the district in which the land, easement, right-of-way, or other interest, or any part thereof, is located, and such court shall have full jurisdiction to divest the complete title to the property sought to be acquired out of all persons or claimants and vest the same in the United States in fee simple, and to enter a decree quieting the title thereto in the United States of America.”

The corporation spoken of is the United States or any of its created corporations that take land under eminent domain, such as the States or any corporation they form in which they own 51 percent or more of that corporation.

End Note #7

So in time of war, which a national emergency falls under, even though no shooting or invasion has occurred, then all the Constitution that you so dearly love and would die for, is the very same document that allows all the presidents since Washington to; declare the first emergency powers act to institute the first Bank of the United States in direct contradiction to the Constitution in time of peace; Lincoln who made the people the enemy of the United States and its Union Members, the States; Roosevelt declaring the national emergency in 1933 under the war powers act and the trading with the enemy act; to the present President Clinton to control you as citizen/subjects/ slaves with 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 this book of War Powers, by Whiting.

In the second chapter we find the 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 and to save you time, Mr. Montgomery has posted much of this documentation on the web site previously mentioned. This Book pertains to the time of the civil war but has far reaching consequences in the principals it spells out.
End Note #8

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 Whiting is stating that the people, who are perceived by 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 sovereigns, 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 stole 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.

End Note #9

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 1860’s, but Roosevelts invoking of that Act, which to this day still exists. 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 with out due process of any law that would exist in time of peace; license and number all people to track the public enemies, that being you. It would behoove the reader to seek the definitions of belligerent in both legal and standard dictionaries. The United States, as belligerent, IS the de facto government although constitutional, when people read 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 (20 men). 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 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 then for that matter. I soon learned later 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, it 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 in tact 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, AND, abolishing the District States the Washington created to gain control over the people of the States in 1791.

End Note #10

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, the domestic enemy, YOU. 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. Now mind you that we did not declare war against the United States but 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 as 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.

End Note #11

This is exactly how and why the IRS operates, the BATF operates, the DEA operates and all those other alphabet agencies of government, even down to child services. And, remember the IRS is nothing but hired private collectors 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 quoted 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?]

End Note #12

The following proves that you never owned your property and if you did, it can still be taken, evidence the woman’s plight in end note #9. 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 presidents, who you claim to be your servants. The confiscation acts have not been repealed and have been in force since 1787. Is it not now evident that the common man, wishing to be free, would have set up such a government if he were Sovereign?

End Note #13

How does the U.S. government or the States seemingly get around this attainder or ex post facto law when; seizing property of the farmer; people that they want the land for national parks; wet land violations that they dream up; 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 you are so charged with treason, 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 in returning to the body of the Book

End Note #14

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 sovereigns as you so think that you are. No, neither you nor your ancestors ever were a 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 from 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 now 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 to 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.

End Note #15

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 were 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.

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 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 libelant, 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 libelants 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 indorsed 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 libelant’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.

SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS

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. Sec. 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 YOU 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 protestor”, 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 Whitings Book continued after you read this endnote. Also, for those people who believe that if you revoke all signatures and get out of banking and social security, get rid of all contracts with the government that you are free. Not so, because you are still the neutral under the emergency (war) powers act. You could claim to be the highest exhalted ruler from another country, but as long as you stay in this country under the belligerent power, you are the subject of this government. This is a fact that no one can deny. The “neutral” speaks to the fact that your presence in the state or country makes you an enemy, so to argue you are not subject, because you have removed yourself from banking or social security, holds no water to the conqueror holding the guns, or I might add to international law.]

End Note #16

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.]

End Note #17

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 than the north. So Congress over rode President Johnsons 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, but not touch the present government of the North. 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. Before closing Part one I might add that the emergency power can continue absent any war that started it. The case for one to read on this is Woods v Miller, 333 U.S. 138; 68 S. Ct. 421; 92 Led 596 (1948). This dealt with the rent control act that was declared unconstitutional by the District court. It was appealed directly to the Supreme court and it reversed the District courts judgement, declaring that because although the war was over the rent act was a direct and immediate cause when invoking the war powers/Emergency powers of Congress and therefore was constitutional and could continue as it likened it to “police power”. Justice Jackson concurring stated, “I think we can hardly deny that the war power is a valid ground for federal rent control now as it has been at anytime. We still are technically in a state of war.”

Therefore, the emergency powers invoked by the Congress in the Reconstruction Acts and Roosevelts Emergency Powers Acts are still “technically” alive and well and have never been repealed by Congress. One more nail in the coffin of the MYTH that the common man is Sovereign is the fact that when the case of Ex parte Milligan was heard it was a conclusion that the Court would find the Reconstruction Acts unconstitutional because of the establishment of the military government throughout the South. The court did not. Then two years later the case of Ex Parte McCardle came before the Supreme Court. McCardle was a southern editor of a Newspaper. He used the statute designed, ironically, to protect the rights of Negroes and federal officers in the South. The Court unanimously agreed that the statute gave it jurisdiction in McCardles case. Then with McCardle’s case already concluded, Congress undertook to block a decision of the Court by repealing the law by which jurisdiction to hear McCardles appeal had been conferred. The repeal occurred and McCardle lost. What happened is that Over 100 years since Ex parte McCardle, the action of the Congress in lopping off of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in order to forestall an unwanted decision has been generally regarded as a regrettable legislative assault upon the independence of the Court– a precedent which it was hoped would not be followed.

This shows the power that Congress and the President has under the war powers. This is why there is no separation of the departments of government under emergency rule. This is why the Supreme Court of today, cannot rule against the emergency war powers in effect. The Court is controlled by Congress, CONSTITUTIONALLY, under the War Powers Clause of the Constitution. I would say, in conclusion, of Part one, that the Congress has continued its Sovereignty by invoking the War Powers and Reconstruction Acts starting March 2, 1867, so that they may invade and strip the rights of the people so as to gain more control than they had in time of peace under the Constitution. The Congress are the ultimate administrators of not only the District Courts in time of peace, but has the control of the allegedly separate branch called the Supreme Court under War Powers. This only further proves that the common man was never a Sovereign to begin with, despite all the hoopla and conjecture that he is. By the term “common man” it is meant the man on the street, the laborer. Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, John Jay, etc., etc, were not the “common man”. They were aristocracy, had money, had land, all had holding in the mother country, England, and were what was called the landed people. They were the People spoken of in “We the People” in the preamble, not the A common man”. The fact that grammatically the third word in a sentence, being capitalized, denote a specific class when it is capitalized, therefore, People did not include the “common man”.

If indeed it meant all the people it would have read “We the people”. Pull any English Grammar book and you will see for yourselves what I say is correct. The lip service and spin doctors have done a wonderful job of hiding the true character of the common man for all these years, that being, he is a subject here in America, the same as he was a subject under the Crown, only here he is called a “citizen”. There is no difference. This was proven in my book The New History of America, which, was written with documented facts that were worded as if I wrote it all without documentation, except for the direct quotes.

END of PART ONE

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:
MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT,
THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS
AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS
OF THE EARTH.
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

THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE GOVERNMENT TO APPROPRIATE PRIVATE PROPERTY TO PUBLIC USE, EITHER IN TIME OF PEACE OR IN TIME OF WAR.

“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?]

THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE ALL SUBJECTS TO DO MILITARY DUTY.

“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.]

REFERENCES AS TO THE CONSTITUTION, SHOWING THE WAR POWERS OF CONGRESS

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.]

RULES OF INTERPRETATION

“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.

ARE THE UNITED STATES AT WAR?

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.]

THE LAW OF NATIONS IS ABOVE THE CONSTITUTION

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]

CAPTURE BY TITLE

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.

THESE PROVISIONS NOT APPLICABLE TO A STATE OF WAR

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;

TRUE APPLICATION OF THESE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES

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.]

WHETHER BELLIGERENTS SHOULD BE ALLOWED CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION DEPENDS UPON THE POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT

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;.

THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS CONFISCATION

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?]

MILITARY GOVERNMENT UNDER MARTIAL LAW

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.

A SEVERE RULE OF BELLIGERENT 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.

CIVIL RIGHT OF LOYAL CITIZENS IN LOYAL DISTRICTS ARE MODIFIED BY THE EXISTENCE OF 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.]

BELLIGERENT RIGHT TO CONFISCATE THE ENEMY’S REAL ESTATE

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.

THE PRESIDENT IS THE SOLE JUDGE

“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.]

LANGUAGE TO BE CONSTRUED TECHNICALLY

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.]

THE CONFISCATION ACTS OF 1862 IS NOT A BILL OF ATTAINDER, NOR AN EX POST FACTO LAW

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.

ACT OF 1862, SECTION VI, DOES NOT PURPORT TO PUNISH BY TREASON

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.]

STATE RIGHTS AND SECESSION DOCTRINES IN THE JURY ROOM

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.

SYMPATHY

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.]

LAWS ARE MOST EFFECTIVE WHICH REQUIRE NO REBEL TO ADMINISTER THEM

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.

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

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.

SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS

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.]

OBJECTION THAT ARRESTS ARE MADE WITHOUT INDICTMENT

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.

OFFICERS MAKING ARRESTS NOT LIABLE TO CIVIL SUIT OR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

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.]

MILITARY ARRESTS LAWFUL

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

A KING’S CHARTER THAT REFUSES TO DIE

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:-

ARTICLE 1

“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

JAMES MONTGOMERY
http://thinkorbebeaten.com/montgomery.html
The INFORMER
http://thinkorbebeaten.com/informer.html


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 37 other followers