Badger Shows Scientist One Of Its Secrets- hahahahahahaha!!!!!

April 3, 2017

I’m glad one of the scientismists finally discovered a Badger doing what many of us already new it could and would do.. OMG!!! These noodle heads should go dig up a coyote den for a few more surprises..

First; Badger Buries Entire Cow in Shocking New Video
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/badger-buries-entire-cow-carcass/

AMERICA’S SUBJECTION TO BRITAIN, IN A NUTSHELL

February 4, 2017

The VATICAN has owned Britain since 1213 thus the VATICAN owns the American Colonies – The United States..

The below Compilation of facts were taken from my research papers and excerpts of my email responses to others. I am trying to cut down on the size of the information and my commentary, to let the facts speak for themselves. I am using old email since the facts remain the same, along with questions possessed to me.

To help in researching the below facts I have broken them into differnt topics. You can do a text search of the following topics, or do a word search, using your word processor.

1. WHEN CONTRACTS OVERRULE DECLARED RIGHTS.
2. ARE OUR PERCEPTIONS CORRECT OF OUR HISTORY AND FORE FATHERS?
3. FACTS OF THE KINGS MIND SET CONCERNING HIS CHARTERS.
4. WHERE THE PRESENT DAY TAXES COME FROM.
5. THE FEDERAL RESERVE SISTER OF THE EXCHEQUER.
6. THE KING RULES BY VAGUE STATUTES.
7. LAW OF MORTMAIN.
8. THE 1787 CONSTITUTION WAS ABROGATED BY THE 14TH AMENDMENT.

1. WHEN CONTRACTS OVERRULE DECLARED RIGHTS.

“The reason I guess no one has looked at the issue of the U.S. still being subject to Britain except for the Informer and myself up until now, can only be, as a rule no one looks beyond what is a settled fact/belief or foregone conclusion. In other words Independence from Britain was as settled in the minds of Americans as God Almighty sitting on the throne and His Son seated at His Right Hand.” (quote from my email response)

THE PARIS PEACE TREATY (PEACE TREATY of 1783):

“In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.

It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, KING OF GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND IRELAND, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch-treasurer and PRINCE ELECTOR OF THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE ETC., and OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, to FORGET all past MISUNDERSTANDINGS AND DIFFERENCES that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to RESTORE,….”

“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

The following quote is from section 25 of the 1776 North Carolina Constitution, Declaration of Rights. Remember this when you read the 1689 Declaration of Rights, third section,
(contained in this paper).

“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.”

“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

“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

“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

“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.)

“The two main issues as I see them in British Colony are; one, the financial obligations of the 1213 Charter En #1, are still in effect, along with the Charters establishing America. Two, the last sentence of the 1689 Bill of Rights En #2, proves the following:”

“That the Charters of the Colonies could never be overturned by a Declaration of Independence, or the 1787 treaty, otherwise known as the Constitution, I’m talking about the real subject matter, financial obligation. Title for the land was transferred to the states and then ceded by Charter to the federal government under Cestui que trust, but the contracted debt and obligation of the Colonial Charters, and the 1213 Charter could not be negated.

Rights could be granted to the citizens, subjects or combatants, which ever the case may be, but the financial obligation cannot, nor could not be affected, because it involves parties not yet born. This why King Charles I said, the 1689 Bill of Rights would not free the kingdom from the obligation of the 1213 Charter. This is why the United States Bank was given right of Charter in America. George Washington had no choice but to succumb to the Rothchilds point man, Hamilton. Talk about deja vu, I mean does this not sound familiar. Our Bill of Rights was given to us, to give us the illusion of freedom. When the tax obligation of the Charters above marched along un-impeded and un-seen, by Americans and Britons alike. Read the Magna Carta again, they wanted the Pope’s blessing for the 1215 Charter, this same Pope is the Pope in the 1213 Charter where England and Ireland were given to him. He could not just give back his land, because of other parties not yet born. The Pope let the barons presume they were free and gave his blessing to the 1215 Magna Carta, knowing to do so would in no way lawfully overturn the grant made to him in the 1213 Charter. Also, it is apparent, it was recognized as law that you could not even create a Charter, wherein you declared a previous grant or Charter null in void unless the relevant parties agreed. How can a Charter be made void if parties to the Charter will never cease to be born, an heir can always be found. To prove this, again what did the new king Charles I do, even though the previous monarchy had come to an end, its obligations did not, this is why he had to included paragraph III, a clause to protect the other parties of an earlier Charter.”
(The U.S. Is Still A British Colony, part III)

Endnote #1

Britannia: Sources of British History (1213)
KING JOHN’s Concession of England and Ireland to the Pope

In the matter of the election and installation of Stephen Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury, King John, in the words of Pope Innocent III, had by “impious persecution”, tried to “enslave” the entire English Church. As a result, the pope laid on England an interdict (1208-14), a sort of religious “strike”, wherein no religious service be performed for anyone, guilty or innocent. When this didn’t work, the king, himself, was excommunicated. Caving-in under that pressure, John wrote a letter of concession to the pope, hoping to have the interdict and the excommunication lifted (1213). John’s concession which, in effect, made England a fiefdom of Rome, worked like a charm. The satisfied pope lifted lifted the yoke he had hung on the people of England and their king.

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 shall look upon this present charter, greeting.

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. As a sign, moreover, of this our own, we will and establish perpetual obligation and concession we will establish that from the proper and especial revenues of our aforesaid kingdoms, for all the service and customs which we ought to render for them, saving in all things the penny of St. Peter, the Roman church shall receive yearly a thousand marks sterling, namely at the feast of St. Michael five hundred marks, and at Easter five hundred marks, seven hundred, namely, for the kingdom of England, and three hundred for the kingdom of Ireland, saving to us and to our heirs our rights, liberties and regalia; all of which things, as they have been described above, we wish to have perpetually valid and firm; and we bind ourselves and our successors not to act counter to them. And if we or any one of our successors shall presume to attempt this, whoever he be, unless being duly warned he come to his kingdom, and this senses, be shall lose his right to the kingdom, and this charter of our obligation and concession shall always remain firm.

Endnote #2

Britannia: Sources of British History
BILL of RIGHTS, 1689

An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown

Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm, did upon the thirteenth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-eight [old style date] present unto their Majesties, then called and known by the names and style of William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, being present in their proper persons, a certain declaration in writing made by the said Lords and Commons in the words following,

Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;

By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament;

By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed power;

By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the great seal for erecting a court called the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes;

By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament;

By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law;

By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;

By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in Parliament;

By prosecutions in the Court of King’s Bench for matters and causes cognizable only in Parliament, and by divers other arbitrary and illegal courses;

And whereas of late years partial corrupt and unqualified persons have been returned and served on juries in trials, and particularly divers jurors in trials for high treason which were not freeholders;

And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects;

And excessive fines have been imposed; And illegal and cruel punishments inflicted; And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against the persons upon whom the same were to be levied;

All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm;

And whereas the said late King James the Second having abdicated the government and the throne being thereby vacant, his Highness the prince of Orange (whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from popery and arbitrary power) did (by the advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and divers principal persons of the Commons) cause letters to be written to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal being Protestants, and other letters to the several counties, cities, universities, boroughs and cinque ports, for the choosing of such persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parliament, to meet and sit at Westminster upon the two and twentieth day of January in this year one thousand six hundred eighty and eight, in order to such an establishment as that their religion, laws and liberties might not again be in danger of being subverted, upon which letters elections having been accordingly made;

And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare:

That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;

That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;

That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;

That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;

That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;

That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;

That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;

That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;

That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;

That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;

And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.

And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties, and that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example; to which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged by the declaration of his Highness the prince of Orange as being the only means for obtaining a full redress and remedy therein.

Having therefore an entire confidence that his said Highness the prince of Orange will perfect the deliverance so far advanced by him, and will still preserve them from the violation of their rights which they have here asserted, and from all other attempts upon their religion, rights and liberties, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster do resolve that William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, be and be declared king and queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, to hold the crown and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to them, the said prince and princess, during their lives and the life of the survivor to them, and that the sole and full exercise of the regal power be only in and executed by the said prince of Orange in the names of the said prince and princess during their joint lives, and after their deceases the said crown and royal dignity of the same kingdoms and dominions to be to the heirs of the body of the said princess, and for default of such issue to the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of her body, and for default of such issue to the heirs of the body of the said prince of Orange. And the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do pray the said prince and princess to accept the same accordingly.

And that the oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all persons of whom the oaths have allegiance and supremacy might be required by law, instead of them; and that the said oaths of allegiance and supremacy be abrogated.

I, A.B., do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary. So help me God.

I, A.B., do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or any authority of the see of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever. And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.

Upon which their said Majesties did accept the crown and royal dignity of the kingdoms of England, France and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the resolution and desire of the said Lords and Commons contained in the said declaration. And thereupon their Majesties were pleased that the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, being the two Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit, and with their Majesties’ royal concurrence make effectual provision for the settlement of the religion, laws and liberties of this kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of being subverted, to which the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons did agree, and proceed to act accordingly.

Now in pursuance of the premises the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled, for the ratifying, confirming and establishing the said declaration and the articles, clauses, matters and things therein contained by the force of law made in due form by authority of Parliament, do pray that it may be declared and enacted that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed and taken to be; and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said declaration, and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same in all time to come.

And the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, seriously considering how it hath pleased Almighty God in his marvellous providence and merciful goodness to this nation to provide and preserve their said Majesties’ royal persons most happily to reign over us upon the throne of their ancestors, for which they render unto him from the bottom of their hearts their humblest thanks and praises, do truly, firmly, assuredly and in the sincerity of their hearts think, and do hereby recognize, acknowledge and declare, that King James the Second having abdicated the government, and their Majesties having accepted the crown and royal dignity as aforesaid, their said Majesties did become, were, are and of right ought to be by the laws of this realm our sovereign liege lord and lady, king and queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, in and to whose princely persons the royal state, crown and dignity of the said realms with all honours, styles, titles, regalities, prerogatives, powers, jurisdictions and authorities to the same belonging and appertaining are most fully, rightfully and entirely invested and incorporated, united and annexed.

And for preventing all questions and divisions in this realm by reason of any pretended titles to the crown, and for preserving a certainty in the succession thereof, in and upon which the unity, peace, tranquility and safety of this nation doth under God wholly consist and depend, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do beseech their Majesties that it may be enacted, established and declared, that the crown and regal government of the said kingdoms and dominions, with all and singular the premises thereunto belonging and appertaining, shall be and continue to their said Majesties and the survivor of them during their lives and the life of the survivor of them, and that the entire, perfect and full exercise of the regal power and government be only in and executed by his Majesty in the names of both their Majesties during their joint lives; and after their deceases the said crown and premises shall be and remain to the heirs of the body of her Majesty, and for default of such issue to her Royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of the body of his said Majesty; and thereunto the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do in the name of all the people aforesaid most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and posterities for ever, and do faithfully promise that they will stand to, maintain and defend their said majesties, and also the limitation and succession of the crown herein specified and contained, to the utmost of their powers with their lives and estates against all persons whatsoever that shall attempt anything to the contrary.

And whereas it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a popish prince, or by any king or queen marrying a papist, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do further pray that it may be enacted, that all and every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the crown and government of this realm and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same, or to have, use or exercise any regal power, authority or jurisdiction within the same; and in all and every such case or cases the people of these realms shall be and are hereby absolved of their allegiance; and the said crown and government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons being Protestants as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case the said person or persons so reconciled, holding communion or professing or marrying as aforesaid were naturally dead; and that every king and queen of this realm who at any time hereafter shall come to and succeed in the imperial crown of this kingdom shall on the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament next after his or her coming to the crown, sitting in his or her throne in the House of Peers in the presence of the Lords and Commons therein assembled, or at his or her coronation before such person or persons who shall administer the coronation oath to him or her at the time of his or her taking the said oath (which shall first happen), make, subscribe and audibly repeat the declaration mentioned in the statute made in the thirtieth year of the reign of King Charles the Second entitled, “An Act for the more effectual preserving the king’s person and government by disabling papists from sitting in either House of Parliament.”

But if it shall happen that such king or queen upon his or her succession to the crown of this realm shall be under the age of twelve years, then every such king or queen shall make, subscribe and audibly repeat the same declaration at his or her coronation or the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament as aforesaid which shall first happen after such king or queen shall have attained the said age of twelve years. All which their Majesties are contented and pleased shall be declared, enacted and established by authority of this present Parliament, and shall stand, remain and be the law of this realm for ever; and the same are by their said Majesties, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled and by the authority of the same, declared, enacted and established accordingly.

II. And be it further declared and enacted by the authority aforesaid, that from and after this present session of Parliament no dispensation by “non obstante” of or to any statute or any part thereof shall be allowed, but that the same shall be held void and of no effect, except a dispensation be allowed of in such statute, and except in such cases as shall be specially provided for by one or more bill or bills to be passed during this present session of Parliament.

III. Provided that no charter or grant or pardon granted before the three and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-nine shall be any ways impeached or invalidated by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law and no other than as if this Act had never been made.

2. ARE OUR PERCEPTIONS CORRECT OF OUR HISTORY AND FORE FATHERS?

“In May, 1775, Washington said: ‘If you ever hear of me joining in any such measure [as separation from Great Britain], you have my leave to set me down for everything wicked’- He also said: ‘It is not wish or interest of the government [meaning Massachusetts], or of any other upon this continent, separately or collectively, to set up for independence'”
Ingersoll, North American Review, CLV. No.2, August, 1892, p. 183, also quote in Sources of the Constitution of the United States, c. Ellis Stevens, 1927, page 36.

“Jay did not favor independence from Britain. His absence from the signing of the Declaration of Independence was noted by Thomas Jefferson.”
Copyright c 1995 by LeftJustified Publiks. All rights reserved.

“Mr. Chairman … I rose yesterday to ask a question, which arose in my own mind. When I asked the question. I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious: The fate of this question and America may depend on this: Have they said, we the States? Have they made a proposal of a compact between States? If they had, this would be a confederation: It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns. Sir, on that poor little thing–the expression, We the people, instead of the States of America. I need not take much pains to show, that the principles of this system, are extremely pernicious, impolitic and dangerous. Is this a Monarchy, like England–a compact between Prince and people; with checks on the former, to secure the liberty of the latter? is this a Confederacy, like Holland–an association of a number of independent States, each of which retain its individual sovereignty?….”
Patrick Henry’s speech of June 5, 1788

REMEMBER THIS PREDICTION OR PATRICK HENRY, WHEN YOU SEE WHAT WASHINGTON DID BELOW AFTER CALLING OUT THE MILITIAS.

“….My great objection to this Government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights: or, of waging war against tyrants: It is urged by some Gentlemen, that this new plan will bring us an acquisition of strength, an army, and the militia of the States: This is an idea extremely ridiculous: Gentlemen cannot be in earnest. This acquisition will trample on your fallen liberty: Let my beloved Americans guard against that fatal lethargy that has pervaded the universe: Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defence, the militia is put into the hands of Congress?”
Patrick Henry’s speech of June 5, 1788

“That Government is no more than a choice among evils, is acknowledged by the most intelligent among mankind, and has been a standing maxim for ages. If it be demonstrated that the adoption of the new plan is a little or a trifling evil, then, Sir, I acknowledge that adoption ought to follow: But, Sir, if this be a truth that its adoption may entail misery on the free people of this country. I then insist, that rejection ought to follow. Gentlemen strongly urge its adoption will be a mighty benefit to us: But, Sir, I am made of such incredulous materials that assertions and declarations, do not satisfy me. I must be convinced, Sir. I shall retain my infidelity on that subject, till I see our liberties secured in a manner perfectly satisfactory to my understanding…..”
Patrick Henry’s speech of June 7, 1788

“….Consider how the only remaining defence we have left is destroyed in this manner; Besides the expences of maintaining the Senate and other House in as much splendor as they please, there
is to be a great and mighty President, with very extensive powers: the powers of a King: He is to be supported in extravagant magnificence: So that the whole of our property may be taken by this American Government, by laying what taxes they please, giving themselves what salaries they please, and suspending our laws at their pleasure: I might be thought too inquisitive.

For I never will give up the power of direct taxation, but for a scourge: But I beseech Gentlemen, at all hazards, not to give up this unlimited power of taxation:
Patrick Henry’s speech of June 7, 1788

In reading the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol I, 1789-1897 I discovered the following:
Gentlemen of the Senate:

Pursuant to the powers vested in me by the act entitled “An act repealing after the last day of June next the duties heretofore laid upon distilled spirits imported from abroad and laying others in their stead, and also upon spirits distilled within the United States, and for appropriating the same,” I have thought fit to divide the United States into the following districts, namely:
The district of New Hampshire, to consist of the State of New Hampshire; the district of Massachusetts, to consist of the State of Massachusetts; the district of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, to consist of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations; the district of Connecticut, to consist of the State of Connecticut; the district of Vermont, to consist of the State of Vermont; the district of New York, to consist of the State of New York; the district of New Jersey, to consist of the State of New Jersey; the district of Pennsylvania, to consist of the State of Pennsylvania; the district of Delaware, to consist of the State of Delaware; the district of Maryland, to consist of the State of Maryland; the district of Virginia, to consist of the State of Virginia; the district of North Carolina, to consist of the State of North Carolina; the district of South Carolina; and the district of Georgia, to consist of the State of the State of Georgia.”Page 99 March 4, 1791

In George Washington’s Proclamation of March 30, 1791 he declares the district of Columbia to be created and it’s borders established, he says further:
“And Congress by an amendatory act passed on the 3rd day of the present month of March have given further authority to the President of the United States….”

THE FOLLOWING IS EMAIL THAT WENT WITH THE ABOVE QUOTE:

This replaced the States in Union with the District States in Union formally known as the States of ……This was also necessary for the newly formed Bank of the United States, February 25, 1791, to do business in the State of……, but is actually the District State. Subjection of the States of….. was complete, all that was necessary was for a permanent state of war to exist, such as we have had since the Civil War, to invoke statutory law over the enemy, requiring them to obey all license requirements, because enemies have no rights in an occupied territory.

Washington declared, under the War Powers, acting as Commander-in-Chief, that the States of the Union were now overlaid by District States, which as I think you know, removes the States boundaries as a matter of sovereignty, violating the Constitutional guarantee of a Republican form of government to the States in Union, Article 4, sec. 4, which cannot take place if delegated authority is taken under the War Powers, not ceded by the Charter/Constitution.

The Constitution granted legislative authority to Congress only over a ten square mile District, making Congress the supreme authority, Article 1, sec. 1., sec. 8.18, over the District. Washington extend this District without Constitutional authority. Washington put in place officers of the District to oversee the District States. As a result of the military rule imposed by Washington, District courts and Appeals courts were ordered to enforce collection and fines and imprisonment of anyone defying the laws of the United States. THESE DISTRICTS CREATED BY GEORGE WASHINGTON HAVE NEVER BEEN REMOVED. The Judicial Districts were created by the Judiciary Act of 1789, two years before Washington said Congress gave him additional powers, thereby HE created District States, so the federal government could use the militias to crush the tax protesters in Pennsylvania, by Washington’s order. Since the Judicial Districts already existed, why did they recreate them? Washington said he was dividing the United States into District States. He said DIVIDING THE STATES, listen, DIVIDING THE STATES, not creating districts in the states, DIVIDING THE STATES into DISTRICTS, changing them, or you would not DIVIDE THEM, because the states were already divided. How can you DIVIDE, SEPARATE the states, made by the state and federal Charters/Constitutions? Why do this when Congress already had the power to put down rebellion, Article I, section 8, U.S. Constitution? This was an excuse to DIVIDE the states into DISTRICTS, extending the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia/Congress and delegating to the President, authority given to Congress to suppress insurrection, under Art. I, sec. 8.

Second, the use of any military power before Congress declares war, by direction of the President is done by him as Commander-in-Chief. Until Congress declares war they cannot stop the President unless they impeach him, or when they declare war they can stop the President with their power of the purse, unless the President were to then declare a national emergency, as Commander-in-Chief, overriding Congress, in effect declaring himself king, or in our case anyone holding that office, which we now have. I disagree with the un-Constitutional emergency powers claimed by the President, but unless the Judiciary declares the President out of line, you or I cannot change this, unless you or I were elected President, and declared this power un-Constitutional, but Congress would then impeach you or I to protect public policy. Around and Around it goes. Again this power comes from their operating under executive jurisdiction, insular capacity, see DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), which was allowed by the Judiciary, beginning with what Washington did. Because it was up to the Judiciary to declare what Congress was doing as un-Constitutional, and up to Washington to not take power delegated to Congress. This power was affirmed by the Congressional Act of 1845, and in the 1850’s by the insular cases. This created precedent for Congress to continue to cede power to the President, delegated to them in the Constitution.

Third, the Districts Washington created answered directly to the Commander-in-Chief, not Congress. In order for these Districts to be created by the President, Congress had to give the President power outside of the Constitution, as declared by Washington himself. Martial law can be used as soon as the military is called upon to put down insurrection or fight a war. Washington created District States, not state districts, and the military occupied the Pennsylvania District until the insurgents went home, Washington said these Districts were created for putting down the rebellion, however they were never disbanded when the rebellion ended.” END EMAIL

3. FACTS OF THE KINGS MIND SET CONCERNING HIS CHARTERS

(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 History of the American Revolution, Vol. 2, Ramsay, 617-9

“If America gives you taxable objects on which you lay your duties here, and gives you, at the same time, a surplus by a foreign sale of her commodities to pay the duties on these objects which you tax at home, she has performed her part to the British revenue. But with regard to her own internal establishments, she may, I doubt not she will, contribute in moderation. I say in moderation, for she ought not to be permitted to exhaust herself. She ought to be reserved to a war, the weight of which, with the enemies that we are most likely to have, must be considerable in her quarter of the globe. There she may serve you, and serve you essentially. For that service – for all service, whether of revenue, trade, or empire – my trust is in her interest in the British Constitution. My hold of the Colonies is in the close affection which grows from common names, from kindred blood, from similar privileges, and equal protection. These are ties which, through light as air, are as strong as links of iron. Let the Colonists 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.”
Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March 22, 1775

“But my idea of it is this; that an empire is the aggregate of many states under one common head, whether this head be a monarch or a presiding republic.”
Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March 22, 1775

“What was it Franklin said, when asked what government have you given us, in reply he said a Republic. Our fore fathers were protecting their ass-ets and seeking to remain subject to the king in a hidden way. For which they were to receive further privileges. I would love to be able to look into the old English records and see if their personal land holdings in England increased, after the 1783 Peace Treaty and the 1787 Constitution/Charter were approved, by an unsuspecting public.”
(quote from my email response)

“Men may lose little in property by the act which takes away all their freedom. When a man is robbed of a trifle on the highway, it is not the two-pence lost that constitutes the capital outrage.”
Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March 22, 1775

“The people heard, indeed, from the beginning of these disputes, one thing continually dinned in their ears, that reason and justice demanded that the Americans, who paid no taxes, should be compelled to contribute.”
Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March 22, 1775

“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.”
Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March 22, 1775

Adam Smith also gives incite into the kings mind set in regards to the colonies paying for the benefits they receive from him, and as to the contributions they should pay and how it is to be done.

“Their wealth was considered as our wealth. Whatever money was sent out to them, it was said, came all back to us by the balance of trade, and we could never become a farthing the poorer by any expense which we could lay out upon them. They were our own in every respect, and it was an expense laid out upon the improvement of our own property and for the profitable employment of our own people.”
1776, AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS by Adam Smith

OUR FORE FATHERS WANTED THE BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES WITHOUT PAYING THE TAX TO THE KING.

“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

“Need I say more, I have been ridiculed by some for what I have said, in respect to our continued subjection to England, and I am sure Al has to. The above quote is further evidence that the king did not relinquish his contract/Charters and land grants/patents to the United States. Instead he preserved his ability to receive gain through his taxes for his investment.

The below quotes will make you realize that the present tax system was put in place by the king and is completely British, and the way they chose to continue to receive the king’s profit from his investment, as declared in his Charters.”
(quote from my email response)

4. WHERE THE PRESENT DAY TAXES COME FROM.

“Before I enter upon the examination of particular taxes, it is necessary to premise the four following maxims with regard to taxes in general.

I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation. Every tax, it must be observed once for all, which falls finally upon one only of the three sorts of revenue above mentioned, is necessarily unequal in so far as it does not affect the other two. In the following examination of different taxes I shall seldom take much further notice of this sort of inequality, but shall, in most cases, confine my observations to that inequality which is occasioned by a particular tax falling unequally even upon that particular sort of private revenue which is affected by it.

II. The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain, and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment, the quantity to be paid, ought all to be clear and plain to the contributor, and to every other person. Where it is otherwise, every person subject to the tax is put more or less in the power of the tax-gathered, who can either aggravate the tax upon any obnoxious contributor, or extort, by the terror of such aggravation, some present or perquisite to himself. The uncertainty of taxation encourages the insolence and favours the corruption of an order of men who are naturally unpopular, even where they are neither insolent nor corrupt. The certainty of what each individual ought to pay is, in taxation, a matter of so great importance that a very considerable degree of inequality, it appears, I believe, from the experience of all nations, is not near so great an evil as a very small degree of uncertainty.

III. Every tax ought to be levied at the time, or in the manner, in which it is most likely to be convenient for the contributor to pay it. A tax upon the rent of land or of houses, payable at the same term at which such rents are usually paid, is levied at the time when it is most likely to be convenient for the contributor to pay; or, when he is most likely to have wherewithal to pay. Taxes upon such consumable goods as are articles of luxury are all finally paid by the consumer, and generally in a manner that is very convenient for him. He pays them by little and little, as he has occasion to buy the goods.

As he is at liberty, too, either to buy, or not to buy, as he pleases, it must be his own fault if he ever suffers any considerable inconveniency from such taxes.

IV. Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and to keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible over and above what it brings into the public treasury of the state. A tax may either take out or keep out of the pockets of the people a great deal more than it brings into the public treasury, in the four following ways. First, the levying of it may require a great number of officers, whose salaries may eat up the greater part of the produce of the tax, and whose perquisites may impose another additional tax upon the people. Secondly, it may obstruct the industry the people, and discourage them from applying to certain branches of business which might give maintenance and unemployment to great multitudes. While it obliges the people to pay, it may thus diminish, or perhaps destroy, some of the funds which might enable them more easily to do so. Thirdly, by the forfeitures and other penalties which those unfortunate individuals incur who attempt unsuccessfully to evade the tax, it may frequently ruin them, and thereby put an end to the benefit which the community might have received from the employment of their capitals. An injudicious tax offers a great temptation to smuggling. But the penalties of smuggling must rise in proportion to the temptation. The law, contrary to all the ordinary principles of justice, first creates the temptation, and then punishes those who yield to it; and it commonly enhances the punishment, too, in proportion to the very circumstance which ought certainly to alleviate it, the temptation to commit the crime. Fourthly, by subjecting the people to the frequent visits and the odious examination of the tax-gatherers, it may expose them to much unnecessary trouble, vexation, and oppression; and though vexation is not, strictly speaking, expense, it is certainly equivalent to the expense at which every man would be willing to redeem himself from it. It is in some one or other of these four different ways that taxes are frequently so much more burdensome to the people than they are beneficial to the sovereign.”
1776, AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS by Adam Smith

“It is not contrary to justice that both Ireland and America should contribute towards the discharge of the public debt of Great Britain. That debt has been contracted in support of the government established by the Revolution, a government to which the Protestants of Ireland owe, not only the whole authority which they at present enjoy in their own country, but every security which they possess for their liberty, their property, and their religion; a government to which several of the colonies of America owe their present charters, and consequently their present constitution, and to which all the colonies of America owe the liberty, security, and property which they have ever since enjoyed. That public debt has been contracted in the defence, not of Great Britain alone, but of all the different provinces of the empire; the immense debt contracted in the late war in particular, and a great part of that contracted in the war before, were both properly contracted in defence of America.”
1776, AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS by Adam Smith

“The expense of the peace establishment of the colonies was, before the commencement of the present disturbances, very considerable, and is an expense which may, and if no revenue can be drawn from them ought certainly to be saved altogether. This constant expense in time of peace, though very great, is insignificant in comparison with what the defence of the colonies has cost us in time of war. The last war, which was undertaken altogether on account of the colonies, cost Great Britain, it has already been observed, upwards of ninety millions. The Spanish war of 1739 was principally undertaken on their account, in which, and in the French war that was the consequence of it, Great Britain spent upwards of forty millions, a great part of which ought justly to be charged to the colonies. In those two wars the colonies cost Great Britain much more than double the sum which the national debt amounted to before the commencement of the first of them. Had it not been for those wars that debt might, and probably would by this time, have been completely paid; and had it not been for the colonies, the former of those wars might not, and the latter certainly would not have been undertaken. It was because the colonies were supposed to be provinces of the British empire that this expense was laid out upon them. But countries which contribute neither revenue nor military force towards the support of the empire cannot be considered as provinces. They may perhaps be considered as appendages, as a sort of splendid and showy equipage of the empire. But if the empire can no longer support the expense of keeping up this equipage, it ought certainly to lay it down; and if it cannot raise its revenue in proportion to its expense, it ought, at least, to accommodate its expense to its revenue. If the colonies, notwithstanding their refusal to submit to British taxes, are still to be considered as provinces of the British empire, their defence in some future war may cost Great Britain as great an expense as it ever has done in any former war. The rulers of Great Britain have, for more than a century past, amused the people with the imagination that they possessed a great empire on the west side of the Atlantic. This empire, however, has hitherto existed in imagination only. It has hitherto been, not an empire, but the project of an empire; not a gold mine, but the project of a gold mine; a project which has cost, which continues to cost, and which, if pursued in the same way as it has been hitherto, is likely to cost, immense expense, without being likely to bring any profit; for the effects of the monopoly of the colony trade, it has been shown, are, to the great body of the people, mere loss instead of profit.”
1776, AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS by Adam Smith

5. THE FEDERAL RESERVE SISTER OF THE EXCHEQUER.

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.

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 all the 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

6. THE KING RULES BY VAGUE STATUTES.

Statue of 32. Hen. VIII c. 84. (1540)

“You will have to read the below statute many times to understand what the king is saying. It was obviously made to be vague and ambiguous, it contains two sentences, the first is 658 words long, the second is 166 words long, not counting punctuation. I have included the following commentary to help your understanding of the below statute. The king is saying that some of the representatives of the Catholic Church and some of his subjects have received grants of land from the king. The king is also saying they are in violation of certain provisions contained in the grants and land patents. Portions of these grants and land patents were granted to 3rd party entities by his 1st party grantees, through the kings grants and charters, having been granted to them. Because of contractual provisions contained in the grants and land patents being violated, the land was declared to revert back to the original grantees who received grants from the king.

As stated in section 1, this statute deals with land twice removed from the king; to preserve the clarity of his grants and land patents, in conjunction with the law of mortmain. You will see that the 1st party grantors, included ecclesiastical and religious persons, as well as secular. This statute does not change grants between the king, and the 1st party grantees and land patentees.

#7, section I should make you think. If any tax or rent due, (as declared in #5, section I), under the kings grants or Charters, are not paid, the land reverts back to the king, as if the Grants and Charters were never written. This is the same language of intent, used in the 1689 Declaration of Rights, third section, and the 25 section, in the 1776 North Carolina Bill of Rights, of the North Carolina 1776 Constitution, which established the North Carolina Corporation.

In section II, the king extends this statue to all grants made by him, now or in the future. The key and purpose to this statute is contained in #2, section I, no stranger is to enjoy a benefit of any Grant or Charter, if they are not a grantee and benefactor, without paying a rent or tax, see #5, section I. The main target of this statute was the Catholic Church, because they were not paying the tax due under the grants made to them.

However, as shown in previous email the Vatican owned the land they were being taxed for, under the 1213 Charter. I am sure this is why the Vatican refused to pay a tax, because the owner
of the land does not tax himself. Since the states were the benefactors from the 1783 Peace
Treaty, not the inhabitants, and they later transferred their original Grant from the king to the United States Constitution/Corporation, making the inhabitants of the states strangers, maybe now you know how and why we are taxed, and when the tax is not paid, the land reverts back to the benefactor of the of the kings original land grants, the United States Corporation, the trustee administering the trust/Constitution/Charter.”
(quote from my email response)

Under The Statues of 32. Hen. VIII c. 84. (1540) (a) Parties

St. 32 Hen. VIII. c. 84,–Where before this time divers, as well temporal as ecclesiastical and religious persons, have made sundry leases, demises and grants to divers other persons, of sundry manors, lordships, forms, meases, lands, tenements, meadows, pastures, or other hereditaments, for term of life or lives, or for term of years, by writing under their seal or seals, containing certain conditions, covenants and agreements to be performed, as well on the part and behalf of the said lessees and grantees, their executors and assigns, as on the behalf of the said lessors and grantors, their heirs and successors; (2) and forasmuch as by the common law of this realm, no stranger to any covenant, action or condition, shall take any advantage or benefit of the same, by any means or ways in the law, but only such as be parties or privies thereunto, by the reason whereof, as well all grantee of reversions, as also all grantees and patentees of the King our sovereign lord, of sundry manors, lordships, granges, forms, meases, lands tenements, meadows, pastures, or other hereditaments late belonging to monasteries, and other religious and ecclesiastical houses dissolved, suppressed, renounced, relinquished, forfeited, given up, or by other means come to the hands and possession of the King’s majesty since the fourth day of February the seven and twentieth year of his most noble reign, be excluded to have any entry or action against the said lessees and grantees, their executors or assigns, which the lessors for the breach of any condition, covenant or agreement comprised in the indentures of their said leases, demises and grants: (3) be it therefore enacted by the King our sovereign lord, the lords spiritual and temporal, and the commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by authority of the same, That as well all and every person and persons, and bodies politic, their heirs, successors and assigns, which have or shall have any gift or grant of our said sovereign lord by his letters patents of any lordships, manors, lands, tenements, rents, parsonages, tithes, portions, or any other hereditaments, or of any reversion or reversions of the same, which did belong or appertain to any of the said monasteries, and other religious and ecclesiastical houses, dissolved, suppressed, relinquished, forfeited, or by any other means come to the King’s hands since the said fourth day of February the seven and twentieth year of his most noble reign, or which at any time heretofore did belong or appertain to any other person or persons, and after came to the hands of our said sovereign lord, (4) as also all other persons being grantees or assignees to or by our said sovereign lord the King, or to or by any other person or persons than the King’s highness, and the heirs, executors, successors and assigns of every of them, (5) shall and may have and enjoy like advantage against the lessees, there executors, administrators and assigns, by entry for non-payment of the rent, or for doing of waste or other forfeiture; (6) and also shall and may have and enjoy all and every such like, and the same advantage, benefit and remedies by action only, for not performing of the other conditions, covenants or agreements contained and expressed in the indentures of their said lesses, demises or grants, against all and every the said lessees and farmers and grantees, their executors, administrators and assigns, as the said lessors or grantors themselves, or their heirs or successors, ought, should, or might have had and enjoyed at any time or times, (7) in like manner and form as if the reversion of such lands, tenements or hereditaments had not come to the hands of our said sovereign lord, or as our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, should or might have had and enjoyed in certain cases, by virtue of the act made at the first session of this present parliament, if no such grant by letters patent had been made by His Highness.

II. Moreover be it enacted by authority aforesaid, That all farmers, lessees and grantees of lordships, manors, lands, tenements, rents, parsonages, tithes, portions, or any other hereditaments for term of years, life or lives, their executors, administrators and assigns, shall and may have like action, advantage and remedy against all and every person and persons and bodies politic, their heirs, successors and assigns, which have or shall have any gift or grant of the King our sovereign lord, or of any other person or persons, of the reversion of the same manors, lands, tenements, and other hereitaments so letten, or any parcel thereof, for any condition, covenant or agreement contained or expressed in the indentures of their lesse or leases, as the same lessees, or any of them might and should have had against the said lessors and grantors, their heirs and successors; (2) all benefits and advantages of recoveries in value by reason of any warranty in deed or in law by voucher or otherwise only excepted.Fn#1

Footnote #1 “The Statute deals only with actions by the assignee of the reversion against the lessee or his assignee, and actions by the lessee or his assignee against the assignee of the reversion; and not with actions by the lessor against the assignee of the lessee, or e contra, which actions seem therefore to be governed by the common law.”
1 Smith, L. C. (10th ed.) 74

7. LAW OF MORTMAIN.

This statute, by King Edward I, was aimed at preventing land passing to the hands of immortal institutions, and thus out of the control and taxation system operated by the state. The Church was the main target.

(Stubbs’ “Charters,” p. 457.)

The king to his Justices of the Bench, greeting. Where as of late it was provided that religious men should not enter into the fees of any without the will and licence of the lords in chief of whom these fees are held immediately; and such religious men have, notwithstanding, later entered as well into their own fees as into those of others, appropriated, them to themselves, and buying them, and sometimes receiving them from the gift of others, whereby the services which are due of such fees, and which at the beginning, were provided for the defence of the realm, are unduly withdrawn, and the lords in chief do lose their escheats of the same; we, therefore, to the profit of our realm, wishing to provide a fit remedy in this matter, by advice of our prelates, counts and other subjects of our realm who are of our council, have provided, established, and ordained, that no person, religious or other, whatsoever presume to buy or sell any lands or tenements, , or under colour of gift or lease, or of any other term or title whatever to receive them from any one, or in any other craft or by wile to appropriate them to himself, whereby such lands and tenements may come into mortmain under pain of forfeiture of the same. We have provided also that if any person, religious or other, do presume either by craft or wile to offend against this statute it shall be lawful for us and for other immediate lords in chief of the fee so alienated, to enter it within a year from the time of such alienation and to hold it in fee as an inheritance. And if the immediate lord in chief shall -be negligent and be not willing to enter into such fee within the year, then it shall be lawful for the next mediate lord in chief, within the half year following, to enter that fee and to hold it, as has been said; and thus each mediate lord may do if the next lord be negligent in entering such fee as has been said. And if all such chief lords of such fee, who shall be of full age, and within the four seas and out of prison, shall be for one year negligent or remiss in this matter, we, straightway after the year is completed from the time when such purchases, gifts, or appropriations of another kind happen to have been made, shall take such lands and tenements into our hand, and shall enfeoff others therein by certain services to be rendered thence to us for the defence of our kingdom ; saving to the lords in chief of the same fees their wards, escheats and other things which pertain to them, and the services therefrom due and accustomed. And therefore we command you to cause the aforesaid statute to be read before you, and from henceforth firmly kept and observed. Witness myself at Westminster, the 15th day of
November, the 7h year of our reign.

From Ernest F. Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
(London: George Bell and Sons, 1910), 148-149

“The bill for establishing a National Bank undertakes among other things:
1. To form the subscribers into a corporation.
2. To enable them in their corporate capacities to receive grants of land; and so far is against the laws of mortmain.
3. To make alien subscribers capable of holding lands; and so far is against the laws of alienage.
4. To transmit these lands, on the death of a proprietor, to a certain line of successors; and so far changes the course of descents.
5. To put the lands out of the reach of forfeiture or escheat; and so far is against the laws of forfeiture and escheat.
6. To transmit personal chattels to successors in a certain line; and so far is against the laws of distribution.
7. To give them the sole and exclusive right of banking under the national authority; and so far is against the laws of monopoly.
8. To communicate to them a power to make laws paramount to the laws of the States; for so they must be construed, to protect the institutions from the control of the State legislatures; and so, probably, they will be construed. I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground; That “all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.” To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.

The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States, by the Constitution.

Can it be thought that the Constitution intended that for a shade or two of convenience, more or less, Congress should be authorized to break down the most ancient and fundamental laws of the several States; such as those against mortmain, the laws of alienage, the rules of descent, the acts of distribution, the laws of escheat and forfeiture, the laws of monopoly?”
WORDS THAT MADE AMERICAN HISTORY, p. 184, quoted in “A Country Defeated In Victory” part I

Thomas Jefferson argued against a United States Bank being chartered in this country, one reason was, it violated the laws of Mortmain. Which proves Jefferson believed we were sovereigns equal to the king. However, in one of the few court cases in this Country on Mortmain, the judge declares that the law of Mortmain never existed in this country. The judge was saying by his decision, that, no sovereigns ever existed in this country, countering Jefferson’s beliefs. Jefferson makes it clear that to allow this Bank and those that control it (Rothchilds/England), will impoverish the American people and transfer the Lands of America into Banks hands, never to be obtained again by the American people, thus Jefferson’s argument of Mortmain. Was Jefferson right about the plight of the American people, read the below quote? Also read “A Country Defeated In Victory”, I prove that England was behind the United States Bank, also Englands involvment continued during the thirties, the time period of the below 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

8. THE 1787 CONSTITUTION WAS ABROGATED BY THE 14TH AMENDMENT.

“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.”
(The U.S. Is Still A British Colony, part III)

“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

“December 8, 1863 President Lincoln declared by proclamation, amnesty and reconstruction for the southerners so they could be readmitted into the Union. 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.”
(The U.S. Is Still A British Colony, part III)

“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.”
(The U.S. Is Still A British Colony, part III)

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.”

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

Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867

RECONSTRUCTION ACT OF THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS

From Twenty Years of Congress: From Lincoln to Garfield.

With a review of the events which led to the political revolution of 1860, by James G. Blaine. Vol. II, pp. 681-682.

An Act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel states.

“Whereas no legal State governments or adequate protection for life or property now exist in the rebel States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, Texas, and Arkansas; and whereas it is necessary that peace and good order should be enforced in said States until loyal and republican State governments can be legally established: Therefore.”

“Be it enacted, That said rebel States shall be divided into military districts and made subject to the military authority of the United States, as hereinafter prescribed, and for that purpose Virginia shall constitute the first district; North Carolina and South Carolina the second district; Georgia, Alabama, and Florida the third district; Mississippi and Arkansas the fourth district; and Louisiana and Texas the fifth district.”

Sec. 2. “That it shall be the duty of the President to assign to the command of each of said districts an officer of the army, not below the rank of brigadier-general, and to detail a sufficient military force to enable such officer to perform his duties and enforce his authority within the district to which he is
assigned.”

Sec. 3. “That it shall be the duty of each officer assigned as aforesaid to protect all persons in their rights of person and property, to suppress insurrection, disorder, and violence, and to punish, or cause to be punished, all disturbers of the public peace and criminals, and to this end he may allow local civil tribunals to take jurisdiction of and to try offenders, or, when in his judgment it may be necessary for the trial of offenders, he shall have power to organize military commissions or tribunals for that purpose; and all interference under color of State authority with the exercise of military authority under this act shall be null and void.”

Sec. 4. “That all persons put under military arrest by virtue of this act shall be tried without unnecessary delay, and no cruel or unusual punishment shall be inflicted; and no sentence of any military commission or tribunal hereby authorized, affecting the life or liberty of any person, shall be executed until it is approved by the officer in command of the district, and the laws and regulations for the government of the army shall not be affected by this act, except in so far as they conflict with its provisions:

“Provided, That no sentence of death under the provisions of this act shall be carried into effect without the approval of the President.”

Sec. 5.”That when the people of any one of said rebel States shall have formed a constitution of government in conformity with the Constitution of the United States in all respects, framed by a convention of delegates elected by the male citizens of said State twenty-one years old and upward, of whatever race, color, or previous condition, who have been resident in said State for one year previous to the day of such election, except such as may be disfranchised for participation in the rebellion, or for felony at common law, and when such constitution shall provide that the elective franchise shall be enjoyed by all such persons as have the qualifications herein stated for electors of
delegates, and when such constitution shall be ratified by a majority of the persons voting on the question of ratification who are qualified as electors for delegates, and when such constitution shall have been submitted to Congress for examination and approval, and Congress shall have approved the same, and when said State, by a vote of its legislature elected under said constitution, shall have adopted the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, proposed by the Thirty-Ninth Congress, and known as a targe.”

“After Ten Amend article fourteen, and when said article shall have become a part of the Constitution of the United States, said State shall be declared entitled to representation in Congress, and Senators and Representatives shall be admitted therefrom on their taking the oaths prescribed by law, and then and thereafter the preceding sections of this act shall be inoperative in said State:

“Provided, That no person excluded from the privilege of holding office by said proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall be eligible to election as a member of the convention to frame a constitution for any of said rebel States, nor shall any such person vote for members of such convention.”

Sec. 6.”That until the people of said rebel states shall be by law admitted to representation in the Congress of the United States, any civil governments which may exist therein shall be deemed provisional only, and in all respects subject to the paramount authority of the United States at any time to abolish, modify, control, or supersede the same; and in all elections to any office under such provisional governments all persons shall be entitled to vote, and none others, who are entitled to vote under the provisions of the fifth section of this act; and no person shall be eligible to any office under any such provisional governments who would be disqualified from holding office under the provisions of the third article of said constitutional amendment.”

Reconstruction Act of March 23, 1867

SUPPLEMENTARY RECONSTRUCTION ACT OF FORTIETH CONGRESS.

From Twenty Years of Congress: From Lincoln to Garfield.

With a review of the events which led to the political revolution of 1860, by James G. Blaine. Vol. II, pp. 682-685.

An Act supplementary to an act entitled

An act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel states, passed March second, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, and to facilitate restoration.

“Be it enacted, That before the first day of September, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, the commanding general in each district defined by an act entitled.”

“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.”

Sec. 2. “That after the completion of the registration hereby provided for in any State, at such time and places therein as the commanding general shall appoint and direct, of which at least thirty days’ public notice shall be given, an election shall be held of delegates to a convention for the purpose of establishing a constitution and civil government for such state loyal to the Union, said convention in each State, except Virginia, to consist of the same number of members as the most numerous branch of the State legislature of such State in the year eighteen hundred and sixty, to be apportioned among the several districts, counties, or parishes of such State by the commanding general, giving to each representation in the ratio of voters registered as aforesaid, as nearly as may be. The convention in Virginia shall consist of the same number of members as represented the territory now constituting Virginia in the most numerous branch of the legislature of said State in the year eighteen hundred and sixty, to be apportioned as aforesaid.”

Sec. 3. “That at said election the registered voters of each State shall vote for or against a convention to form a constitution therefor under this act. Those voting in favor of such a convention shall have written or printed on the ballots by which they vote for delegates, as aforesaid, the words “For a convention,” and those voting against such a convention shall have written or printed on such ballots the words “Against a convention.” The person appointed to superintend said election, and to make return of the votes given thereat, as herein provided, shall count and make return of the votes given for and against a convention; and the commanding general to whom the same shall have been returned shall ascertain and declare the total vote in each State for and against a convention. If a majority of the votes given on that question shall be for a convention, then such convention shall be held as hereinafter provided; but if a majority of said votes shall be against a convention, then no such convention shall be held under this act:

“Provided, That such convention shall not be held unless a majority of all such registered voters shall have voted on the question of holding such convention.”

Sec. 4. “That the commanding general of each district shall appoint as many boards of registration as may be necessary, consisting of three loyal officers or persons, to make and complete the registration, superintend the election, and make return to him of the votes, lists of voters, and of the persons elected as delegates by a plurality of the votes cast at said election; and upon receiving said returns he shall open the same, ascertain the persons elected as delegates according to the returns of the officers who conducted said election, and make proclamation thereof; and if a majority of the votes given on that question shall be for a convention, the commanding general, within sixty days from the date of election, shall notify the delegates to assemble in convention, at a time and place to be mentioned in the notification, and said convention, when organized, shall proceed to frame a constitution and civil government according to the provisions of this act and the act to which is it supplementary; and when the same shall have been so framed, said constitution shall be submitted by the convention for ratification to the persons registered under the provisions of this act at an election to be conducted by the officers or persons appointed or to be appointed by the commanding general, as hereinbefore provided, and to be held after the expiration of thirty days from the date of notice thereof, to be given by said convention; and the returns thereof shall be made to the commanding general of the district.”

Sec. 5. “That if, according to said returns, the constitution shall be ratified by a majority of the votes of the registered electors qualified as herein specified, cast at said election, (at least one half of all the registered voters voting upon the question of such ratification,) the president of the convention shall transmit a copy of the same, duly certified, to the President of the United States, who shall forthwith transmit the same to Congress, if then in session, and if not in session, then immediately upon its next assembling; and if it shall, moreover, appear to Congress that the election was one at which all the registered and qualified electors in the State had an opportunity to vote freely and without restraint, fear, or the influence of fraud, and if the Congress shall be satisfied that such constitution meets the approval of a majority of all the qualified electors in the State, and if the said constitution shall be declared by Congress to be in conformity with the provisions of the act to which this is supplementary, and the other provisions of said act shall have been complied with, and the said constitution shall be approved by Congress, the State shall be declared entitled to representation, and Senators and Representatives shall be admitted therefrom as therein provided.”

Sec. 6. “That all elections in the States mentioned in the said “Act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel States,” shall, during the operation of said act, be by ballot; and all officers making the said registration of voters and conducting said elections shall, before entering upon the
discharge of their duties, take and subscribe the oath prescribed by the oath 1862 act approved July second, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, entitled “An act to prescribe an oath of office:”

“Provided, That if any person shall knowingly and falsely take and subscribe any oath in this act prescribed, such person so offending and being thereof duly convicted, shall be subject to the pains, penalties, and disabilities which by law are provided for the punishment of the crime of wilful and corrupt perjury.”

Sec. 7. “That all expenses incurred by the several commanding generals, or by virtue of any orders issued, or appointments made, by them, under or by virtue of this act, shall be paid out of any moneys in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.”

Sec. 8. “That the convention for each State shall prescribe the fees, salary, and compensation to be paid to all delegates and other officers and agents herein authorized or necessary to carry into effect the purposes of this act not herein otherwise provided for, and shall provide for the levy and collection of such taxes on the property in such State as may be necessary to pay the same.”

Sec. 9. “That the word article, in the sixth section of the act to which this is supplementary, shall be construed to mean section.”

Reconstruction Act of July 19, 1867

SUPPLEMENTARY RECONSTRUCTION ACT OF JULY 19, 1867.

From Twenty Years of Congress: From Lincoln to Garfield.
With a review of the events which led to the political revolution of 1860, by James G. Blaine. Vol. II, pp. 685-687.

“An Act supplementary to an act entitled An Act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel states, passed on the second day of March, 1867, and the act supplementary thereto, passed on the 23d day of March, 1867.”

“Be it enacted, That it is hereby declared to have been the true intent and meaning of the act of the 2d day of March, 1867, entitled “An act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel States,” and of the act supplementary thereto, passed on the 23d day of March, 1867, that the governments then existing in the rebel States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, Texas, and Arkansas, were not legal State governments; and that thereafter said governments, if continued, were to be continued subject in all respects to the military commanders of the respective districts, and to the paramount authority of Congress.”

Sec. 2.”That the commander of any district named in said act shall have power, subject to the disapproval of the General of the army of the United States, and to have effect till disapproved, whenever in the opinion of such commander the proper administration of said act shall require it, to suspend or remove from office, or from the performance of official duties and the exercise of official powers, any officer or person holding or exercising, or professing to hold or exercise, any civil or military office or duty in such district under any power, election, appointment, or authority derived from, or granted by, or claimed under, any so-called State or the government thereof, or any municipal or other division thereof; and upon such suspension or removal such commander, subject to the disapproval of the General as aforesaid, shall have power to provide from time to time for the performance of the said duties of such officer or person so suspended or removed, by the detail of some competent officer or soldier of the army, or by the appointment of some other person to perform the same, and to fill vacancies occasioned by death, resignation, or otherwise.”

Sec. 3. “That the General of the army of the United States shall be invested with all the powers of suspension, removal, appointment, and detail granted in the preceding section to district commanders.”

Sec. 4. “That the acts of the officers of the army already done in removing in said districts persons exercising the functions of civil officers, and appointing others in their stead, are hereby confirmed: Provided, That any person heretofore or hereafter appointed by any district commander to exercise the functions of any civil office, may be removed either by the military officer in command of the district, or by the General of the army. And it shall be the duty of such commander to remove from office, as aforesaid, all persons who are disloyal to the Government of the United States, or who use their official influence in any manner to hinder, delay, prevent, or obstruct the due and proper administration of this act and the acts to which it is supplementary.”

Sec. 5.”That the boards of registration provided for in the act entitled “An act supplementary to an act entitled ‘An act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel States,’ passed March 2, 1867, and to facilitate restoration,” passed March 23, 1867, shall have power, and it shall be their duty, before allowing the registration of any person, to ascertain, upon such facts or information as they can obtain, whether such person is entitled to be registered under said act, and the oath required by said act shall not be conclusive on such question, and no person shall be registered unless such board shall decide that he is entitled thereto; and such board shall also have power to examine, under oath, (to be administered by any member of such board,) any one touching the qualification of any person claiming registration; but in every case of refusal by the board to register an applicant, and in every case of striking his name from the list as hereinafter provided, the board shall make a note or memorandum, which shall be returned with the registration list to the commanding general of the district, setting forth the grounds of such refusal or such striking from the list:

“Provided, That no person shall be disqualified as member of any board of registration by reason of race or color.”

Sec. 6. “That the true intent and meaning of the oath prescribed in said supplementary act is, (among other things,) that no person who has been a member of the Legislature of any State, or who has held any executive or judicial office in any State, whether he has taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States or not, and whether he was holding such office at the commencement of the rebellion, or had held it before, and who has afterwards engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof, is entitled to be registered or to vote; and the words “executive or judicial office in any State” in said oath mentioned shall be construed to include all civil offices created by law for the administration of any general law of a State, or for the administration of justice.”

sec. 7. “That the time for completing the original registration provided for in said act may, in the discretion of the commander of any district, be extended to the 1st day of October, 1867; and the boards of registration shall have power, and it shall be their duty, commencing fourteen days prior to any election under said act, and upon reasonable public notice of the time and place thereof, to revise, for a period of five days, the registration lists, and, upon being satisfied that any person not entitled thereto has been registered, to strike the name of such person from the list, and such person shall not be allowed to vote. And such board shall also, during the same period, add to such registry the names of all persons who at that time possess the qualifications required by said act who have not been already registered; and no person shall, at any time, be entitled to be registered or to vote, by reason of any executive pardon or amnesty, for any act or thing which, without such pardon or amnesty, would disqualify him from registration or voting.”

Sec. 8. “That section four of said last-named act shall be construed to authorize the commanding general named therein, whenever he shall deem it needful, to remove any member of a board of registration and to appoint another in his stead, and to fill any vacancy in such board.”

Sec. 9. “That all members of said boards of registration, and all persons hereafter elected or appointed to office in said military districts, under any so-called State or municipal authority, or by detail or appointment of the district commanders, shall be required to take and to subscribe the oath of office prescribed by law for officers of the United States. I am not sure that this is the oath intended here.”

Sec. 10. “That no district commander or member of the board of registration, or any of the officers or appointees acting under them, shall be bound in his action by any opinion of any civil officer of the United States.”

Sec. 11. “That all the provisions of this act and of the acts to which this is supplementary shall be construed liberally, to the end that all the intents thereof may be fully and perfectly carried out.”

Reconstruction Act of March 11, 1868

AMENDATORY RECONSTRUCTION ACT OF MARCH 11, 1868

From Twenty Years of Congress: From Lincoln to Garfield.

With a review of the events which led to the political revolution of 1860, by James G. Blaine. Vol. II, p. 687.

“An Act to amend the act passed March 23, 1867, entitled An Act supplementary to ‘An act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel states,’ passed March 2, 1867, and to facilitate their restoration.”

“Be it enacted, That hereafter any election authorized by the act passed March 23, 1867, entitled “An Act supplementary to ‘An act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel states,’ passed March 2, 1867, and to facilitate their restoration,” shall be decided by a majority of the votes actually cast; and at the election in which the question of the adoption or rejection of any constitution is submitted, any person duly registered in the State may vote in the election district where he offers to vote when he has resided therein for ten days next preceding such election, upon presentation of his certificate of registration, his affidavit, or other satisfactory evidence, under such regulations as the district commanders may prescribe.”

Sec. 2. “That the constitutional convention of any of the States mentioned in the acts to which this is amendatory may provide that at the time of voting upon the ratification of the constitution, the registered voters may vote also for members of the House of Representatives of the United States, and for all elective officers provided for by the said constitution; and the same election officers, who shall make the returns of the votes cast on the ratification or rejection of the constitution, shall enumerate and certify the votes cast for members of Congress.”

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

“How remote was this Hamiltonian concept from the events of 1867 and 1888, when a “rump” Congress arrogated to itself the power to force ratification of a rejected amendment, coercing ratifications by several of the rejecting States.”
Tulane Law Review, The Dubious Origin Of The Fourteenth Amendment. page 26

“The Act dealt with these Southern States, referred to as “rebel States” in its various provisions. It opened with a recital that “no legal State government” existed in these States.

It placed these States under military rule. Louisiana and Texas were grouped together as the Fifth Military District, and placed under the domination of an army officer appointed by the President. All civilian authorities were placed under the dominant authority of the military government.”
Tulane Law Review, The Dubious Origin Of The Fourteenth Amendment.page 31

“The most extreme and amazing feature of the Act was the requirement that each excluded State must ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, in order to again enjoy the status and rights of a State, including representation in Congress. Section 3 of the Act sets fourth this compulsive coercion thus imposed upon the Southern States.”
Tulane Law Review, The Dubious Origin Of The Fourteenth Amendment.page 32

“Senator Doolittle of Wisconsin, a Northerner and a Conservative Republican. During the floor debate on the bill, he said:
“My friend has said what has been said all around me, what is said every day: the people of the South have rejected the constitutional amendment, and therefore we will march upon them and force them to adopt it at the point of the bayonet, and establish military power over them until they do adopt it.”
Tulane Law Review, The Dubious Origin Of The Fourteenth Amendment.page 32

“Whatever justification for other portions of the Reconstruction Act may or may not be found in this constitutional provision, there could clearly be no sort of a relationship between a guarantee to a State of “a republican form of government” and an abrogation of the basic and constitutional right of a State, in its legislative discretion, to make its own choice between ratification or rejection of a constitutional amendment proposal submitted to the state legislatures by the Congress of the United States. To deny to a State the exercise of this free choice between ratification and rejection, and to put the harshest sort of coercive pressure upon a State to compel ratification, was clearly a gross infraction–not and effectuation–of the constitutional guarantee of “a republican form of government.”
Tulane Law Review, The Dubious Origin Of The Fourteenth Amendment.page 37

Madison said in Federalist No. 43:
“….the authority extends no further than to a guaranty of a republican form government, which supposes a preexisting government of the form which is to be guaranteed. As long, therefore, as the existing republican forms are continued by the States, they are guaranteed by the federal Constitution.

Whenever the States may choose to substitute other republican forms, they have a right to do so, and to claim the federal guaranty for the latter. The only restriction imposed on them is, that they shall not exchange republican for anti-republican Constitutions; a restriction which, it is presumed, will hardly be considered as a grievance.”
Tulane Law Review, The Dubious Origin Of The Fourteenth Amendment. page 38

“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 from 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

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)

“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

“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

“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

The North Carolina Legislature protested [by “Resolution” of December 6, 1866] as follows:

“The Federal Constitution declare, in substance, that Congress shall consist of a House of Representatives, composed of members apportioned among the respective States in the ratio of their population, and of a Senate, composed of two members from each State. And IN THE ARTICLE WHICH CONCERNS AMENDMENTS, IT IS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED THAT `NO STATE, WITHOUT ITS CONSENT, SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF ITS EQUAL SUFFRAGE IN THE SENATE.’ THE CONTEMPLATED AMENDMENT WAS NOT PROPOSED TO THE STATES BY A CONGRESS THUS CONSTITUTED. At the time of its adoption, the eleven seceding States were deprived of representation both in the Senate and House, although they all, except the State of Texas, had Senators and Representatives duly elected and claiming their privileges under the Constitution. In consequence of this, these States had no voice on the important question of proposing the Amendment. HAD THEY BEEN ALLOWED TO GIVE THEIR VOTES, THE PROPOSITION WOULD DOUBTLESS HAVE FAILED TO COMMAND THE REQUIRED TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY….”

“If the votes of these States are necessary to a valid ratification of the Amendment, they were equally necessary on the question of proposing it to the States; for it would be difficult, in the opinion of the Committee, to show by what process in logic, men of intelligence would arrive at a different conclusion.”
North Carolina Senate Journal, 1866-67, pp. 92 and 93.

“However, after you learn this information, if you do not already know it, you will come to the conclusion the Informer and I have come to. No reoccurring remedy will be obtained in the courts, just brief aberrations of justice based on the demeanor or impatients of the judge, or his/her lack of self-confidence based on the judges lack of knowledge concerning public policy.

Once the judges know their decisions will not be overturned, or their careers damaged, defeat of patriot arguments will be swift, and the penalty for frivolous law suits will be just as swift and increase with intolerance of the Judiciary. I don’t mean to sound like a stick in the mud, but it is true. Only through the education of the public, coinciding with the coming financial pain, will change the publics perception of their freedom.

Unfortunately I fear it will be to late to make any changes, until Rome self-destructs.

The Reintroduction of Wolves in the Northern Rockies as a Method of Making Money Under the Guise of Ecological Restoration

February 2, 2017

According to these excerpts below from the 1984 study of Wolves in Central Idaho by Kaminski and Hanson including involvement with IDFG questionnaire data, many Idahoans were telling the truth about Idaho already having wolves before the 1995 wolf reintroduction fraud which wolf advocates and some retired USFWS employees still profit from to this day. Tim Kemery who did a Wolverine Study locating 13 wolverines for the IDFG Department and Craig Groves then collared all 13 wolverines, Kemery also handed in data of wolves he located as well as six trapped wolves which had been turned over to IDFG for evidence. Tim documented the wolverines and indigenous wolves simultaneously. He recorded their travel patterns, within their territory. He also documented the number of individuals, and put this information on maps. IDFG suppressed the data.

Wolves were recovering and thriving under multi-use! That is the “main” objective the “greenies” in our IDFG and USFWS want to cover up, is the fact that both the wolves, and even more so the wolverines were making a “come-back” under multi-use.—Tim Kemery

This wolf evidence was “lost”, and IDFG denied it existed. The truth is going to keep coming out, the truth always wins in the end. Many of the sightings were in areas I lived in as a boy where I also sighted wolves, near Goat Mountain, and Graham. The rest below are excerpts from the 1984 200 page study done by Timm Kaminski and Jerome Hanson, Wolves of Central Idaho.

Study cooperators were; FWS, Endangered Species Program; Boise Field Office, Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, Univ. Montana. U.S. Forest Service, Region 1 and 4. Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

A hundred years ago, gray Wolves (Canis lupus) ranged over most of Idaho (Goldman 1944; Figure l). The last of these animals were believed to have been extirpated from the mountainous regions of the state by the late 1930′s with the removal of wolves from elk and deer winter range near the Middle Fork of the Salmon River in 1938 (J.Harris, pers. caoum.). However, reports of wolves persisted, with observations varying from detailed descriptions of large gray canids to droppings consisting of ungulate hair and bone. Such reports, ranging in time from the early 1940’s through the mid 1970′s received little attention from state and federal resource agencies. Moreover, reports of wolves brought ridicule and cynicism from a doubting public, often peers or hunting companions of those reporting wolves.

In June 1978, an Idaho Department of Fish and Game research biologist observed and photographed a black wolf on the Clearwater National Forest in north central Idaho. During October 1978, a gray wolf was shot and killed 200 miles south on the Boise National Forest of west central Idaho. Newspaper- accounts rewritten in review of wolves recent presence in Idaho, lending credibility to both past and present reports.

Study Approach;

Past studies (Kaminski and Boss 1981~ Schlegel and Kaminski 1983) have indicated that 80% of all wolf reports in Idaho identify lone wolves and 13% pairs. Most (>70%) of these reports have occurred during the summer and fall.
Scattered wolf reports persisted throughout north and central Idaho since the 1940′s despite past control efforts and have indicated the presence of adult wolves, young wolves, and/or pups together (Kaminski and Boss 1981). Past field investigations have had little success in detecting the presence of pups, young wolves,or groups of wolves (~3) together. However, 6% of all wolf reports refer to groups of 3 or more wolves and 13% to pairs suggesting periodic recruitment may take place.

The occurrence of lone wolves and pairs during the summer and fall is not unusual for pack members (Mech 1970, Fritts and Mech 1981, Harrington and Mech 1982a). During this time, wolves frequently travel and hunt alone or in pairs while focusing their activities near pup rearing areas called rendezvous sites (murie 1944, Joslin 1966, Pimlott et al. 1969, mech 1970). Rutter and Pimlott (1968), and L. Garbyn (pers. cammun.) postulated that prey availability (e.g. calving areas, beaver) might play a role in the selection of pup rearing areas. Past studies have suggested similar relationships (Pimlott et al. 1969, Haber 1980, Oosenbrug and Carbyn 1982). With the approach of winter, pack members (pups and adults) begin traveling together and frequent ungulate wintering areas (VanBallenberghe 1972, Hoskinson and Mech 1976, Mech and Karns 1977, Nelson and Mech 1981) for pre~ (elk, deer, moose) that comprise the bulk {>90%) of the annual diet (Mech 1970, Gasaway -et al. 1983).

Wolves were reported consistently on the Boise NF from 1974 through 1977 and increased from 1978 to present. Nine of 10 reports received probable ratings from 1974 through 1977. Thirteen reports were received in 1978, 22 in 1979, and 15 in 1980. Wolves were reported 47 times during 1981 and 1982. Nine reports were received on the Forest in 1983, excluding some reports not yet received from the Boise NF.

Kaminski and Boss (1981) found 65% of all wolf reports on the Boise NF were concentrated in the Bear Valley – Warm Lake (BVWL) area. High mountain meadows used traditionally by ungulates for calving, available ungulate and secondary prey (beaver, ground squirrels)and habitat typical of that used by wolves during summer for rearing pups were suggestive of a possible relationship between wolves and ungulates in the BVWL area. Thirty reports of wolves in this area since 1974; 24 that were rated probable, supported this hypothesis.

Review of wolf reports from BVWL since 1 October 1980 suggested a possible bias toward probable ratings (Kaminski 1980-82) due to other reliable reports in the area. Re-evaluation of reports questioned the validity of those involving 3 or more wolves together and revealed a wider distribution of wolf reports on the Forest after 1981. Since 1 October 1980, 41 of 71 reports described wolves outside BVWL, including 12 of 19 (64%) probable reports during 1982 and 1983.
Most evidence of wolves on the Boise NF since 1974 was reported outside designated Wilderness, including 37 of 44 reports from 1 October 1980 to present.

In October 1980, Wolves were reported 15 times with 14 receiving probable ratings. Ten reports were located in BVWL but were distributed widely within the area. Live animals were reported 7,times, including 3 reports from Dagger Creek north to Sulphur Creek, l from Park Creek, and 3 from Bear Valley.

Outside the BVWL, wolves were reported 4 times. A wolf was reported near the town of Graham in mid October followed by reports in November near Jackson Peak and Clear Creek. In July, a wolf was reported near Shafer Creek.
Eleven wolf reports were rated probable in 1981. Reports were distributed from Mores Creek south of the South Fork Payette River to Sulphur Creek.

Thirty-eight wolf reports from the Boise NF were received during 1982 and 1983. Nineteen •reports received probable ratings. Eleven reports were distributed outside BVWL, and 8 were located within the area. During 1982, wolves were reported during July near Archie Creek in the South Fork Payette River drainage and on 2 occasions 1 week apart near Fir Creek. Reports during September included wolves east of the North Fork Range near Scriver Creek, south of Stolle meadows in Yellowjacket Creek drainage, and near Fir Creek.

Wolves were seen 8 times in October with reports distributed widely over the Forest, probably as a result of increased backcountry visitation by hunters. Wolves were reported in the Deadwood River drainage near Goat Creek and black wolves were reported 4 times during a 2 week period from October 16 to October 30 between Thorn Creek and Troutdale on the Middle Fork Boise River. A buff colored wolf was reported near Warren pond on 22 October and a gray wolf was seen in the Middle Fork Boise River drainage near Dismal Swamp on 23 October. A wolf was reported near winter range along Danskin Creek in November.

Four of 9 wolf reports in 1983 were rated probable. Howling and tracks were reported south of Warm Lake in January. A wolf was reported howling near the Pine-Mack Creek divide in July and a gray wolf was reported by a hunter in Sulphur Creek in November.

Reports of wolves reviewed suggest wolves were distributed primarily in BVWL from 1974 through 1981 but became increasingly scattered on the Boise NF during 1982 and 1983.

ABUNDANCE OF WOLVES

Over 80% of reports from 1970 to 1 October 1980 involved lone .wolves on the Boise NF (Kaminiski and Boss 1981). Since 1 October 1980, 37 of 43 (86%) probable wolf reports on the Forest have also involved lone Wolves. More than 1 wolf was reported on the Boise NF 6 times since 1 October 1980. Three wolves, an adult and 2 pups, were reported during October and November of 1980. In January 1981, 2 wolves were reported near Lick Creek followed by a report of 6 wolves in the South Fork Deer Greek drainage in August. Pairs were reported twice during October 1982. Two wolves were observed near the South Fork Payette River drainage near Archie Creek and 2 black wolves were reported between Bald Mountain and Thorn Creek.

Twenty reports of lone wolves, 1 pair, and 3 reports of 3 or more wolves were used to estimate that 4 to 10 wolves inhabited the Boise NF and adjacent Forests fran 1980 through 1981. Nineteen of 33 reports, including 17 of lone wolves and 2 reports of a pair, were used to estimate that 4 to 9 wolves are presently scattered over the Boise NF and nearby Forests.

Despite a preponderance of reports involving lone wolves, Kaminski and Boss (1981) reported evidence to suggest wolves periodically produced pups near BVWL. Seven probable reports of more than 1 wolf since l October 1980 supported that supposition.

In October 1980, a creambuff colored adult and 2 pups, 1 similar to the adult and the other black, were reported in BVWL near Poker Meadows. An identical group was reported south of Stolle Meadows 3 weeks later. This group may have been responsible for 4-5″ tracks in snow of wolves along the SFSR road in late November.
In January 1981, tracks of 2 wolves Chasing a group of 5 or 6 elk near Lick Creek were reported by a lion hunter. In August, 6 wolves including 3 adults and 3 pups were observed by a FS employee in the South Fork Deer Creek drainage Where a wolf was killed in l978.

Evidence of wolves near Sulphur Creek including a silver-buff colored adult, a pup, and howling was reported during a 3 week period in September by outfitters. A rronth later, a black wolf was seen between the head of Sulphur and Whiskey creeks by a zoo director and – 2 hunting companions.

Outside the BVWL, pairs of wolves were reported twice in October 1982. Two medium gray wolves were reported along Archie Creek in the South Fork Payette River drainage, and 2 black wolves were reported between Thorn Butte and Bald Mountain. In each case, at least one additional probable report from these areas was reported in 1982.

INGRESS OF WOLVES

As on other Forests, ingress of wolves from contiguous and surrounding National Forests is believed partially responsible for wolves’ continued presence. The Boise NF lies at the southern most end of the CIA. It is unlikely that wolves would arrive on the Forest from anywhere but the north (Payette NF) and possibly east (Gballis NF) (Maps 1 & 2). Fran the north the rnost probable area of exchange of wolves between the Payette and Boise NF is the SF~lR and Johnson Creek.

In these areas, wolves are believed to follow ungulates (primarily elk) during spring and fall migrations. Fran the east, wolves may cross during sunrer through fall between the Sulphur and Boundary creek drainages, though wolves probably avoid the area during peaks in recreation use•. Consistent reports between Fir Creek and Cape Horn During the last 10 years also suggest this area as a potential movement corridor between forests. Two final areas include the Sawtooth Wilderness and the Middle Fork salmon River wolves historically were found in the Sawtooth Valley and during the past 2 decades have been reported in the Cape Horn area (Challis NF).

Wolves moving south could conceivably end up in roadless areas near Graham and the headwaters of the Middle and North Forks of the Boise River. Probable reports of wolves have increased in these areas during the past 5 years.
The Middle Fork Salmon River was mentioned previously as an area of mutual gathering for wintering ungulates migrating from summer range on the Boise, Payette, and Challis forests. the potential for the Middle Fork to act as a seasonal vector for wolves between forests in southcentral Idaho is worth noting. —Timm Kaminski and Jerome Hanson – Wolves of Central Idaho 1984 study.

So much for the theory of a few Canadian wolves just simply “passing” through.

Communism, By Any Other Name Is Still Communism

January 30, 2017

The 10 PLANKS stated in the Communist Manifesto and some of their U.S. governmental counterparts are…

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
The U.S. Government does this with actions such as the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management (Zoning laws are the first step to government property ownership) fact is the government owns all property and has since 1783. Don’t pay your fair share property taxes and they will prove to you who owns your land in the greatest free country subjugated under federal authority in all the world..

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
U.S. citizens know this the application of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State “income” taxes. They call it “paying your fair share”. It has been claimed by so called “patriots” that there is no law supporting this taxation. Yes there is, it is called the contractual agreement citizens and even their employers sign with the IRS..

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
The U.S. Government calls it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
The U.S. Government calls it government seizures, tax liens, Public “law” 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of “terrorists” and those who speak out or write against the “government” (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process. Asset forfeiture laws are used by DEA, IRS, ATF etc…).

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. The U.S. Government calls it the Federal Reserve which is a privately-owned credit/debt system allowed by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) another privately-owned corporation. The Federal Reserve Banks issue Fiat Paper Money and practice economically destructive fractional reserve banking.

6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
U.S. Government calls it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver’s licenses and Department of Transportation regulations.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
The U.S. Government calls it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture… Thus read “controlled or subsidized” rather than “owned”… This is easily seen in these as well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
The U.S. Government calls it Minimum Wage and slave labor like dealing with their Most Favored Nation trade partner; i.e. Communist China. It can be seen in practice via the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two “income” family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920’s, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
The U.S. Government calls it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public “law” 89-136. These provide for forced relocations and forced sterilization programs, like in China.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
U.S. Constitutor citizens are being taxed to support what they call ‘public’ schools, but are actually “government force-tax-funded schools ” Even private schools are government regulated. The purpose is to train the young to work for the communal debt system. They also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based “Education” . These are used so that all children can be indoctrinated and inculcated with the government propaganda, like “majority rules”, and “pay your fair share”. WHERE are the words “fair share” in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26)?? NO WHERE is “fair share” even suggested !! The philosophical concept of “fair share” comes from the Communist maxim, “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need! This concept is pure socialism. … America was made the greatest society by its private initiative WORK ETHIC … Teaching themselves and others how to “fish” to be self sufficient and produce plenty of EXTRA commodities to if so desired could be shared with others who might be “needy”.

A Demand for Russian ‘Hacking’ Proof

January 18, 2017

A Demand for Russian ‘Hacking’ Proof
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/01/17/a-demand-for-russian-hacking-proof/?print=pdf

 

The History Of Lawful Gold And Silver Legal Tender And The Debt Brought On By Unlawful Fiat Paper Money

January 4, 2017

THE HISTORY OF LAWFUL GOLD AND SILVER LEGAL TENDER AND THE DEBT BROUGHT ON BY UNLAWFUL FIAT PAPER MONEY

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.” (Thomas Jefferson)

“Governments never do anything by accident; if government does something you can bet it was carefully planned.” (Franklin D. Roosevelt)

“The high office of President has been used to format a plot to destroy the American’s freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizen of his plight.” (John F. Kennedy at Columbia University, 10 days before his assassination)

This country, which was founded on Godly principles, finds itself having some perplexing problems. One of which, is a reported four trillion dollars debt, this debt is actually closer to twelve trillion dollars, that’s a twelve and twelve zeros.

“If ever again our nation stumbles upon unfunded paper, it shall surely be like death to our body politic. This country will crash.” (George Washington)

How did this country get so far in debt, is it the Americans’ fault, the government’s fault, or is it possible that there are other forces at work behind the scenes, causing the manipulation of the currencies of the world? For sure the ultimate blame rests with the people of America. The responsibility of freedom is secured by individuals and can only be given away individually, the minority cannot relinquish the rights for the majority. Thomas Jefferson said: “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free it expects something it cannot be.” God’s Holy Word says in Hosea 4:6: “My people are destroyed by a lack of knowledge.”

Can a country that murders its children through government-sponsored abortion expect to prosper, or even survive? Can a nation escape God’s judgment while murdering its children and allowing, even promoting, homosexuality, drug abuse, usury, and the blatant violation of its people by government? The Word of God and history prove this cannot occur without the physical destruction of its government and its people for allowing the violation of God’s Laws.

Here is what the Lord says about the violation of His laws: “Woe to them, because they have strayed from me! Destruction to them, because they have rebelled against me! I long to redeem them but they speak lies against me. They do not cry out to me from their hearts but wail upon their beds. They gather together for grain and new wine but turn away from me. I trained them and strengthened them, but they plot evil against me. They do not turn to the Most High; they are like a faulty bow. Their leaders will fall by the sword because of their insolent words. For this they will be ridiculed in the land of Egypt. Put the trumpet to your lips! An eagle is over the house of the LORD because the people have broken my covenant and rebelled against my law. Israel cries out to me, ‘O our God, we acknowledge you!’ But Israel has rejected what is good; an enemy will pursue him. They set up kings without my consent; they choose princes without my approval. With their silver and gold they make idols for themselves to their own destruction” (Hosea 7:13-8:4).

How do you destroy a country without firing a shot and without destroying it’s infrastructure? By controlling its money, manipulating inflation and using non-redeemable paper money instead of gold and silver. Here is what the Lord says about paper money: “The LORD detests differing weights, and dishonest scales do not please him” (Proverbs 20:23).

Here is a quote from John Adams: “I am firmly of the opinion that there never was a paper pound, a paper dollar, or a paper promise of any kind, that ever yet obtained a general currency [as money] but by force or fraud, generally by both.”

Also, a quote from Count Destutt de Tracy: “A theft of greater magnitude and still more ruinous, is the making of paper money; it is greater because in this money there is absolutely no real value; it is more ruinous because by its gradual depreciation during the time of its existence, it produces the effect which would be proration of the coins. All those iniquities are founded on the false idea the money is but a sign.”

I’m going to show you some examples in our nation’s history, of how we have been conquered and enslaved. By the time the Revolutionary War was over the United States government could not pay its war debts, altogether Congress printed two hundred million dollars in paper currency just to operate the government. In a short time they had to borrow money just to pay the interest; does this sound familiar?

William Davie, who was a delegate from North Carolina [1787] said: “Can our general government recur to the ordinary expedient of loans? During the late war, large sums were advanced to us by foreign states and individuals. Congress has not been enabled to pay even the interest of these debts, with honor and punctuality. The requisitions made on the states have been every where unproductive, and some of them have not paid a stiver. . . .Many of the individuals who lent us money in the hour of our distress, are now reduced to indigence in consequence of our delinquency. So low and hopeless are the finances of the United States, that, the year before last, Congress was obliged to borrow money even to pay the interest of the principal which we had borrowed before. This wretched resource of turning interest into principal, is the most humiliating and disgraceful measure that a nation could take, and approximates with rapidity to absolute ruin.”

After the Revolutionary War, the military almost rebelled, and would have if it had not been for the pleadings of George Washington. In 1787, Shay’s Rebellion broke out as a result of the financial woes in this country. This caused a great rift between government and the people. Congress decided that the Articles of the Confederation were not sufficient and that a constitution must be written to protect the government and allow trade between the States and other countries. Only then would Congress be able to provide protection for the government and the States, and only then would they, through this commercial enterprise, be able to pay it’s debts.

However, the forefathers made a big mistake by allowing the international bankers to operate in this country with their foreign interests unchecked. Whoever controls the money of the world controls the world.

Here are a few quotes: “Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce.” (Paul Warburg, drafter of the Federal Reserve Act)

“Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws.” (Mayer Amschel Rothschild)

“A great industrial Nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the Nation and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the world — no longer a Government of free opinion, no longer a government of conviction and vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men.” (Woodrow Wilson)

“A power over a man’s subsistence amounts to a power over his will.” (Alexander Hamilton)

“It is not a matter of what is true that counts, but a matter of what is perceived to be true.” (Henry Kissinger)

There are and have been groups of people with this power and goal. These groups have passed down from generation to generation the desire to control and rule the world. Just to name a few of whom I’m sure you’ve heard — Rothschild, Morgan and Rockefeller. In order for these groups to implement their plan they have used the secret societies such as, Jesuits, Free Masonry and the Illuminati. The people of this country thought we won the Revolutionary War. They were not aware of the forces at work and the covenants made through treaties, and the obligations involved, when using the king’s money. Nor were they aware of the taxation that ensues for using the kings money and the slavery that follows.

Here’s what our Lord said about this: “We have had to borrow money to pay the king’s tax on our fields and vineyards. Although we are of the same flesh and blood as our countrymen and though our sons are as good as theirs, yet we have to subject our sons and daughters to slavery. Some of our daughters have already been enslaved, but we are powerless, because our fields and our vineyards belong to others” (Nehemiah 5:4-5). And in I Samuel 8:11-18 He said: “This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.”

“If the American people ever allow the banks to control issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied.” (Thomas Jefferson)

Let’s assume we are starting all over again in this country, and up until, now the free and independent people who occupy this country have had their needs met by God Almighty and used barter as a medium of exchange. Now they’re going to introduce private banking and issue money as debt.

Let’s say the bank agrees to loan the government one thousand dollars (paper, gold, silver or rocks) and expects ten percent in interest, payable in legal tender as payment for the use this money. Now remember, the only money in existence is the money the bank is now going to create. The bank makes the loan to the government and at the same time the free and sovereign people wish to share the convenience of using this new money rather than barter.

The only money in existence is that created by the bank and loaned to the government, and the once free and sovereign people. Where will the ten percent come from to meet the interest on the loan? Government has agreed to meet its obligations with legal tender. The government may borrow more money to pay the interest, or the bank could foreclose on the government’s property.

The people have the same problem because they have also borrowed the bank’s money, at ten percent interest, with no possibility of ever repaying the interest because the interest money was never physically created, it is merely a book entry. However, they are unaware that this is a scam and have been taught to trust the government.

The great minds in government decide they can repay the interest government owes by raising a direct tax on the income of their once free and sovereign people, making it voluntary while phrasing the tax laws in such a form as to make it appear to be mandatory. The resourceful educated minority learn how this works, able to acquire more money from the other less resourceful people, and repay interest from their surplus. The less resourceful have gotten so poor that they have begun losing their property so the number unable to pay the bank’s usury becomes greater every year. Eventually, because of this use of non-redeemable paper money, the bankers will foreclose on the government and its people.

Your whole nation is BANKRUPT. The citizens begin to realize: One, government does not have their best interests at heart. Two, government representatives would permit your enslavement for their personal gain. Three, government has fraudulently obtained your co-operation in the looting of your own money and property. Four, government schools have withheld the knowledge that would have made the fraud impossible.

“Those unaware are unaware of being unaware.” (Merrill Jenkins)

Are you mad yet? No! Still in denial. The following authorities should overcome your denial:-

First, Marriner Eccles, then chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, in testimony before the Banking and Currency Committee of the House of Representatives on the Banking Act of 1935. Mr. Eccles testified: “In purchasing offerings of Government bonds, the banking system as a whole creates new money, or bank deposits. When the banks buy a billion dollars of Government bonds as they are offered — and you have to consider the banking system as a whole, as a unit — the banks credit the deposit account of the Treasury with a billion dollars. And they debit their Government bond account a billion dollars, or actually create, by a bookkeeping entry, a billion dollars.”

Second, President Eisenhower’s Secretary of the Treasury Anderson in an interview with U.S. News and World Report on August 31, 1959 was asked: “Do you mean that banks, in buying Government securities, do not lend out their customers’ deposits? That they create the money they use to buy the securities?”

Answer (by Secretary Anderson): “That is correct. Banks are different from other lending institutions. When a savings and loan association, an insurance company, or a credit union makes a loan, it lends the very dollar that its customers have previously paid in. But when a bank makes a loan, it simply adds to the borrower’s deposit account in the bank by the amount of the loan. The money is not taken from anyone else’s deposit; it was not previously paid in to the bank by anyone. It’s new money, created by the bank for the use of the borrower.”

“We are completely dependent on the commercial Banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the Banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied soon.” (Robert H. Hemphill, Credit Manager of Federal Reserve Bank, Atlanta, Ga.)

“The banks — commercial banks and the Federal Reserve — create all the money of this nation and its people pay interest on every dollar of that newly created money. Which means that private banks exercise unconstitutionally, immorally, and ridiculously the power to tax the people. For every newly created dollar dilutes to some extent the value of every other dollar already in circulation.” (Congressman Jerry Voorhis)

On top of all that the bankers were able to get Congress to allow them to practice fractional banking. The banks can loan out 98% of the money on deposit, so if you deposited one thousand dollars, the bank could loan out nine hundred and eighty dollars. This is creating money out of thin air, account money, no money has actually been printed yet now out of the 98% available to be loaned out, you now owe more interest and no money has been printed to repay the principle much less the interest. This money can continue to be loaned out until it reaches zero. What a scam! This was a fraud from the beginning because bank-created money was required to repay interest, which was impossible because only the principal was created.

Francis Corbin, a delegate from Virginia [1787] said: “The debts due by the United States and how much is due to foreign nations! No part of the principal is paid to those nations; nor has even the interest been paid as honorably and punctually as it ought. Nay, we were obliged to borrow money last year to pay the interest. What! Borrow money to discharge the interest of what was borrowed, and continually augment the amount of the public debt! Such a plan would destroy the richest country on earth.”

Here is a example of how the Social Security scam works: Paul, in the year 1940, saves by paying one hundred dollars to the national Social Security Administration. He receives in exchange a claim which is virtually an unconditional government IOU drawn upon future taxpayers. Because government uses this money to meet the interest it owes, and places a IOU in the fund to cover your deposit. It is a tax and a forced loan that is spend ahead of collection so that the contributions of the Peters of 1970 are called upon to meet government obligations to the Pauls of 1940 when they claim upon Social Security. The administrators of 1940 shifted their problems to the administrators of 1970 when they would be either dead or retired. The problem is compounded by the fact that whereas Paul’s one hundred dollars was redeemable in silver, it must now be discharged by inflationary non-redeemable debt [fiat] money. You cannot discharge debt with a debit note, only transfer it to the next generation.

Moral breakdown and rejection of godly principles will destroy our once great nation. However we will focus on the destruction resulting from the use of paper money, the weapon of the internationalists.

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF UNITED STATES BANKING AND PAPER MONEY

1765: Prior to the establishment of the United States, Blackstone said in his commentaries: “If a man counterfeits the King’s money; and if a man brings false money into the realm counterfeit to the money of England, knowing the money to be false.” As to the first branch, counterfeiting the King’s money; this is treason, whether the false money be uttered in payment or not. Also if the King’s own ministers alter the standard of alloy established by law, it is treason.”

1781: George Washington wrote to John Laurens and said: “Experience has demonstrated the impracticability long to maintain a paper credit without funds for its redemption.”

APRIL 12, 1782: John Adams negotiated with the Netherlands to receive a loan and recognition for the United States.

APRIL 19, 1782: The Netherlands recognized the independence of the United States.

JUNE 11, 1782: Dutch bankers agree to lend two million dollars to the United States.

OCTOBER 8, 1782: A treaty of commerce and friendship was signed between the United States and the Netherlands.

NOVEMBER 30, 1782: A preliminary peace treaty is signed between the United States and England. The most important provisions are the establishment of boundaries and recognition of American independence. All debts due to creditors of either country are accepted as valid debts.

FEBRUARY 28, 1785: Britain threatens to break off the treaty because Americans have failed to comply with the treaty, by having paid the debts owed to Britain.

JUNE-SEPTEMBER 1785: There is a major depression because of unstable paper money resulting in falling prices. This allowed some of the States to discharge their debts on a basis which was sometimes a thousand to one.

1786: The board of Treasury in 1786 condemned paper currency “the revival of a paper currency and the rage for another experiment in this fallacious medium that has so far prevailed as to enter into the system of revenue of several States”.

1787: During the federal convention, Roger Sherman made the statement that: “no Government has a right to impose on its subjects any foreign currency to be received in payments as money which is not of intrinsic value: unless such Government will assume and undertake to secure and make good to the possessor of such currency the full value which they oblige him to receive it for.”

JANUARY 27, 1787: Shays rebellion took place because of financial depression.

JANUARY 14, 1790: Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton says the United States should pay its debts at par value, even though many speculators would profit by this. [Alexander Hamilton married into the Rothschild family December 14, 1780, Alexander Hamilton was born Alexander Levine, of Jewish lineage, in St. Croix, the West Indies. After changing his name and his geographical situs, he married Elizabeth Schuyler, the second daughter of Phillip Schuyler, at the bride’s home in Albany, New York. The bride’s mother was Catherine Van Rensselaer, daughter of Colonel John R. Van Rensselaer, who was the son of Hendrik, the grandson of Killiaen, the first partroon. [THE INTIMATE LIFE OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, by Allan Hamilton 1910] [It has been reported that there are documents in the British museum that prove Alexander Hamilton received payment from the Rothschild’s for his dastardly deeds. Could this payment have been for his involvement in the establishment of a foreign bank in this country, and for convincing Congress to assume the States debts, which would have created a debt obligation binding the United States government and the States to the international bankers?]

JUNE 20, 1790: Alexander Hamilton convinces Congress to pass the Assumption Act, under which the federal government is to assume the States debts.

DECEMBER 14, 1790: Alexander Hamilton submits a plan for a bank of the United States, mainly as a vehicle for the funding of debts under the Assumption Act and to establish credit.

FEBRUARY 25, 1791: The bank of the United States is chartered.

MARCH 1-2, 1792: Congress debates the propriety of Alexander Hamilton’s conduct of his office as Secretary of the Treasury. Nothing irregular is discovered.

APRIL 2, 1792: Congress passes the Coinage Act, which establishes a mint and prescribes a decimal system of coinage.

FEBRUARY 2, 1793: Alexander Hamilton resigns as Secretary of Treasury.

JANUARY 24-FEBRUARY 20, 1811: Congress debates renewal of the charter for the Bank of the United States.

MARCH 4, 1811: The Bank of the United States is closed permanently.

1812-1815: The War of 1812 breaks out with Britain.

DECEMBER 5, 1815: President Madison proposes a second Bank of the United States to succeed the first Bank that failed to be rechartered in 1811.

MARCH 14, 1816: Congress creates the second Bank of the United States.

JANUARY 7, 1817: The second Bank of the United States is opened.

SEPTEMBER 11, 1830: The Anti-Masonic party acquires national status by holding a convention in Philadelphia.

DECEMBER 6, 1830: President Andrew Jackson attacks the Bank of the United States.

SEPTEMBER 26, 1831: The Anti-Masonic party holds a national convention in Baltimore.

MARCH 17, 1832: The Banking Select Committee said: “That the consequences of the present, is that the currency of the United States is bank notes, to the exclusion of the precious metals. The exclusion of gold and silver coins from circulation is a serious defect, which ought not to be tolerated, and which should be speedily remedied. There is not an example on record of the successful issue of a paper currency, and our experiment has been too short and dubious to prove its suitableness as a permanent regulation.”

JUNE 11, 1832: A bill to renew the charter of the Bank of the United States is submitted by Congress.

JULY 3 1832: The Bank bill is approved.

OCTOBER 1832: The Anti-Masonic party backs Andrew Jackson, and he is re-elected.

JUNE 1, 1833: The Secretary of Treasury refuses to follow the order of President Jackson to distribute the Bank of United States funds into State banks.

SEPTEMBER 18, 1833: President Jackson reads to his cabinet a paper drafted by the Attorney General as to the reasons why the federal deposits should be removed from the Bank of the United States.

DECEMBER 26, 1833: Senator Henry Clay offers two resolutions of censure against President Jackson for his plan to remove deposits from the Bank of the United States.

MARCH 17, 1834: Representative Gillet, a member of the Banking Select Committee, concurred in the expediency of increasing the circulation of gold coin, arguing that, “under the paper system, banks have broken, and on whom did the loss most severely fall? Upon the poor, who understood little of the condition and credit of banks. The wealthy usually foresaw the evil and protected themselves.”

MARCH 28, 1834: The Senate approves the criticizing of President Jackson.

APRIL 4, 1834: The House passes four resolutions sustaining the bank policy of the Jackson administration.

APRIL 15, 1834: President Jackson makes a formal protest to the Senate concerning its resolution of censure.

MAY 7, 1834: The Senate refuses to enter President Jackson’s protest in its journals.

DECEMBER 1, 1834: President Jackson declares that the national debt will be paid off JANUARY 1, 1835.

JANUARY 30, 1835: There is an attempt to assassinate President Jackson.

FEBRUARY 18, 1836: The Bank of the United States charter expires, the Bank receives a charter in Pennsylvania.

DECEMBER 5, 1836: President Andrew Jackson said in his message to Congress: “It is apparent from the whole context of the Constitution as well as the history of the times which gave birth to it, that it was the purpose of the Convention to establish a currency consisting of the precious metals. These were adopted by a per-exchange, such as of certain agricultural commodities recognized by the statutes of some States as tender for debts, or the still more pernicious expedient of paper currency.”

JANUARY 23, 1840: A bill establishing an Independent Treasury is proposed by Congress.

JUNE 30, 1840: The Independent Treasury bill passes the House.

JULY 28, 1841: A bill re-establishing a National Bank passes the Senate.

AUGUST 13, 1841: The House approves the bill to re-establish the National Bank.

AUGUST 13, 1841: The Independent Act of 1840 is repealed.

AUGUST 16, 1841: President Tyler vetoes the Bank bill.

SEPTEMBER 3, 1841: The Senate approves the second Bank bill for a National Bank under another name.

SEPTEMBER 9, 1841: President Tyler vetoes the second Bank bill.

AUGUST 6, 1846: The Independent Treasury Act is approved.

APRIL 12, 1861: The Civil War starts.

AUGUST 5, 1861: Congress passes the first National income tax.

AUGUST 21, 1861: The United States issues the first paper currency.

FEBRUARY 25, 1863: Congress establishes a National Banking system.

1864: The Coinage Act of 1834 had the purpose of striking a fatal blow at the ability of banks to sustain a circulation of small denomination paper currencies. The invalid conclusion that the legal-tender acts of the Civil War were constitutional because they effected through a paper medium the same type of “debasement”, which no one “ever imagined was taking private property without compensation or without due process of law”.

APRIL 14, 1865: A short time after President Lincoln ordered the Lincoln greenbacks to be printed; which would deprive the banks from charging interest on the money they would have printed, President Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth. It’s been proven this was a conspiracy because of the other four men who were involved in the assassination, and it has also been established that these men were on the payroll of the Rothschild’s.

OCTOBER 31, 1865: The public debt of the United States stands at over seventy dollars per capita.

MARCH 18, 1869: Congress passes the public Credit Act to pay the public debt in gold, leaving three hundred million in greenbacks and a bitter debate about redeeming them.

July 28, 1868: The Fourteenth Amendment is enacted, which not only created federal citizenship, it also made it illegal for federal citizens to question the federal debt. [clause four 14th Amendment]

SEPTEMBER 24, 1869: On this “Black Friday” a financial panic occurs after two stock gamblers, Jay Gould and James Fisk, try to organize a corner on the gold market. The Grant administration dumps four million dollars in gold on the market, the price falls in fifteen minutes from one hundred and sixty two dollars to one hundred and thirty three dollars and many investors are ruined.

1873: The historian, William Graham Sumner explained that: “The popular mind rests on instances like our continental money, as showing the error of paper money where it absolutely perishes. It is thought that, short of this, only alarmists see danger. The story of Austria shows that an irredeemable paper currency is a national calamity of the first magnitude, of which one may indeed find greater or lesser examples, but of which the least is a peremptory warning to statesmen and financiers. It is like a disease in the blood, undermining the Constitution and spreading decay through all the arteries of business. In its measure and according to circumstances it is pernicious, if not fatal.”

FEBRUARY 12, 1873: Congress terminates the coinage of silver, because the intrinsic value of bullion exceeds its face value, this Act becomes known as “the crime of 73.”

SEPTEMBER 8, 1873: Jay Cooke and Company declares itself bankrupt, this causes a three year depression.

APRIL 22, 1874: President Grant vetoes a bill passed by Congress validating the issuance of greenbacks.

JUNE 20, 1874: Congress passes a Currency Act fixing the maximum amount of greenbacks in circulation at three hundred and eighty-eight million dollars.

JANUARY 14, 1875: Congress passes the Specie Resumption Act, reducing the circulation of greenbacks to three hundred million dollars.

AUGUST 19, 1877: In a speech made by the Secretary of Treasury John Sherman, he said: “There is a large class of people who believe that paper can be, and ought to be, made into money without any promise or hope of redemption; that a note should be printed: “This is a dollar,” and be made a legal tender. I regard this as a mild form of lunacy, and have no disposition to debate with men who indulge in such delusions, which have prevailed to some extent, at different times, in all countries, but whose life has been brief, and which have shared the fate of other popular delusions. The Supreme Court only maintained the constitutionality of the legal tender promise to pay a dollar by a divided court, and on the ground that it was issued in the nature of a forced loan, to be redeemed upon the payment of a real dollar; that is, so many grains of silver or gold. I therefore dismiss such wild theories, and speak only to those who are willing to assume, as an axiom, that gold and silver or coined money, have been proven by all human experience to be the best possible standards of value, and that paper money is simply a promise to pay such coined money, and should be made and kept equal to coined money, by being convertible on demand. [emphasis mine]

JANUARY 1885: The Treasury surplus was up to five hundred million dollars.

JANUARY 17, 1894: The federal gold reserves drop to only sixty million dollars. The federal government offers a bond issue of fifty million dollars to make up gold reserve losses.

NOVEMBER 13, 1894: Another federal bond issue of fifty million dollars is offered. Because of poor public response, most of this loan is taken over by New York bankers.

JANUARY 6, 1896: The fourth bond issue in three years is floated, this time in public subscription totaling one hundred million dollars, federal treasury reserves are down to seventy nine million dollars which is considered so low as to endanger the continuance of the gold standard.

MARCH 14, 1900: Congress passes the Gold Standard Act, under which other forms of money are made redeemable in gold on demand, a gold reserve of one hundred and fifty million dollars is created, and the sale of bonds is authorized when necessary to maintain the reserve.

MARCH 13, 1907: A financial panic begins with a sharp drop of the stock market.

OCTOBER-NOVEMBER 1907: A run begins on October 23rd on the Knickerbocker Trust Co. that wipes out that bank, many other banks fail, unemployment rises, and food prices soar. Increased bank deposits infused by the United States Treasury restore confidence, supported by loans from such capitalist leaders as J. Pierpont Morgan.

MAY 30, 1908: Under the impact of the financial panic of 1907, the Aldrich-Vreeland Currency Act is passed by Congress, it establishes the National Monetary Commission to study banking.

JULY 12 1909: Congress passes an amendment to the Constitution authorizing the imposition of a tax on incomes.

FEBRUARY 25, 1913: The sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is declared in effect. [This amendment did not confer any new power of taxation on Congress and did not extend the power of taxation to subjects previously exempted. Its whole purpose was to exclude the source from which income tax is a direct tax which must be apportioned among the states, and thus remove the occasion which might otherwise exist for an apportionment. [27th American Jurisprudence, Section 17, pages 317, 318.] “The source of the taxing power is not the 16th Amendment, it is Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.” [Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner, 32 T.C. 1959, CCH at pg. 659.]

December 23, 1913: The Federal Reserve Act is signed, dividing the country into twelve districts, each with a federal reserve bank. The act also provides for a drastic currency based on commercial assets rather than bonded indebtedness, mobilization of bank reserves, public control of the banking system [foreign interest], and decentralization rather than centralization.

JULY 28, 1914: World War One begins.

OCTOBER 15, 1915: American bankers, organized by J.P. Morgan and Co., agree to lend Great Britain and France five hundred million dollars, the largest loan floated in any country.

JULY 11, 1916: The Federal Aid Road Act is signed by President Wilson. The measure provides five million dollars for the use of the States that undertake road building programs, and it establishes a system of highway classification. Almost two hundred and fifty thousand commercial vehicles and more than three million private cars are registered to use public roads.

JULY 17, 1916: The Federal Farm Loan Act is passed by Congress.

OCTOBER 3, 1916: Congress passes the War Revenue Act, increasing corporate and personal income taxes and establishing excise-profits, and luxury taxes.

APRIL 5, 1918: The War Finance Corporation is formed, capitalized at five hundred million dollars to support war industries through loans and bond sales.

1920: Congress abolishes the United States Treasury and establishes the Dept. of Treasury, in the Act of 1920 66th Congress session II ch. 214.

APRIL 9-16, 1924: The United States banks loan Germany two hundred million for reparation.

NOVEMBER 14, 1925: Because of a severe financial depression in Europe, the United States agrees to a sharp reduction in foreign war debts as well as interest rates on them, but still insists on partial payment.

JANUARY-APRIL 1926: War debt agreements are reached between the United States and several European countries, including France, Italy, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Rumina, Estonia and Latvia. In the case of France it is agreed that the four billion dollars owed to the United States banks will be paid over a period of sixty two years. Italy, which owes one billion five hundred million dollars is also to be paid back in sixty two years.

MARCH 10, 1928: The United States pays three hundred million dollars to Germany to reimburse them for property taken during World War One.

JULY 10, 1929: The new paper currency, only two thirds the size of the old, goes into circulation.

OCTOBER 24-28, 1929: The stock market crashes as millions of shares change hands and billions of dollars in value are lost.

FEBRUARY 24, 1930: J.P. Morgan and Co. announce that the group formed to halt the market crash on October 24-29, has sold all its shares and is disbanded.

DECEMBER 11, 1930: The largest Bank failure in the nations history takes place when the Bank of the United States closes its doors in New York.

SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 1931: The bank panic increases as over eight hundred banks are closed in two months. Individuals start to hoard gold to protect themselves.

DECEMBER 8, 1931: The President’s Address message to Congress calls for increased taxation to make up for the deficit of nine hundred and two millon dollars for the year 30-31.

JANUARY 22, 1932: The Reconstruction Finance Corporation came into existence with the purpose of loaning money to the banks.

FEBRUARY 27, 1932: Congress passes the Glass-Steagall Act, which authorizes the sale of seven hundred and fifty million dollars worth of the government gold supply and allows the Federal Reserve system more leeway in discounting commercial paper.

JULY 21, 1932: President Hoover signs the Emergency Relief Act which provides three hundred million dollars in loans to the States and increases the Reconstruction Finance Corporations debt ceiling to three billion dollars to make loans to State and local governments.

March 10, 1933: By the continued use of paper money the United States had to be declared bankrupt, which was proven by the bankruptcy procedures that were followed in President Roosevelt’s Executive Orders. President Roosevelt declared the United States bankrupt by Presidential Executive Order, 6073 and the subsequent Executive Orders, 6102, 6111 and 6260. [these documents are still publicly attainable in any federal depository library]

MAY 23, 1933: On the House floor, Congressman McFadden brought impeachment charges against many of the Federal Reserve board members, Federal Reserve agents of many States, comptroller of the currency, and several secretaries of the United States Treasury for high crimes and misdemeanors, including the theft of eighty billion dollars from the United States Government and with committing the same thefts in 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933 and in the years previous to 1928, amounting to billions of dollars. These charges were remanded to the Judiciary committee for investigation, where these charges were effectively buried and until this day have never been answered. [See Congressional Record pp. 4055-4058 May 23, 1933]

JUNE 16, 1933: The National Industrial Recovery Act is passed, this allows private corporations to make their own laws and write their own statutes, as applied to the public.

JANUARY 30, 1934: The Gold Reserve Act gives the President the right to change the value of the dollar. The President immediately devalues the dollar to fifty nine cents.

JUNE 28, 1934: The Federal Home Association is established, to insure the loans made by banks in building homes.

MAY 27, 1935: The United States Supreme Court declares that the National Industrial Recovery Act is unconstitutional. Since the Federal Reserve is a private corporation and passes its own laws; does this not make the Federal Reserve unconstitutional [illegal]? [Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 1934]

AUGUST 14, 1935: The Social Security Act [Federal Insurance Contribution Act] becomes law, the American people are told this is a insurance policy. This is actually an agreement between you and the United States government where you have agreed under tort law that you have contributed to the national debt and that you are a wrong doer under the definition of the word contribution, as it is used by the government. [see the word contribution and the words tort feasor in Blacks Law Dictionary 6th ed.]

AUGUST 23, 1935: The Banking Act of 1935 is passed, restructuring the federal reserve system to allow for increased control of banking and credit.

AUGUST 28, 1935: The Public Utility Act is signed, the United States takes control of the countries utilities.

AUGUST 29, 1935: Congress passes the Farm Mortgage Act to offset the Supreme Courts decision against the Federal Farm Bankruptcy Act.

JANUARY 4, 1939: President Roosevelt requests one billion three hundred and nineteen million five hundred and fifty eight thousand dollars for defense.

JANUARY 5, 1939: President Roosevelt submits a budget of nine billion dollars to Congress.

SEPTEMBER 1, 1939: World War Two Begins.

JANUARY 3, 1940: President Roosevelt requests one billion eight hundred million dollars for defense.

MAY 31, 1940: President Roosevelt requests one billion three hundred million dollars for defense.

JUNE 22, 1940: Congress raises the national debt ceiling to a record high of forty nine billion dollars.

JANUARY 8, 1941: The Presidents budget calls for a record seventeen billion eight hundred million dollars, of which sixty percent is for defense.

MARCH 30, 1941: President Roosevelt approves a measure that raises the ceiling on the public debt to a record sixty five billion dollars.

JANUARY 5, 1943: President Roosevelt proposed budget for the fiscal year 1943 is one hundred and eight billion nine hundred and three million dollars.

JANUARY 13, 1944: President Roosevelt proposes a budget of one hundred billion dollars for 1944.

JULY 28, 1945: The United Nations charter is ratified by the Senate.

JANUARY 2, 1950: A report by the United States Dept. of Commerce shows that for the period July 1, 1945 to September 30, 1949, the United States spent almost twenty five billion dollars in foreign aid. Military spending for the same years has been one third of the yearly budget.

JULY 19, 1950: President Truman calls for partial mobilization after Korea crosses the 38th parallel and also asks Congress for ten billion dollars for the military.

APRIL 30, 1951: President Truman gets fifty seven billion dollars for defense for 1951.

JANUARY 21, 1952: The President’s budget calls for expenditures of eighty five billion four hundred and forty four million dollars for the coming fiscal year. Slightly over three fourths of the budget is to spent on “national security”.

JUNE 29, 1955: The Federal Aid Highway Act is signed by the President. It authorizes thirty three billion dollars to be spent over the next thirteen years on the highways.

JANUARY 16, 1957: A peace time budget of seventy two billion eight hundred and seven million dollars is proposed.

JANUARY 13, 1958: The fiscal deficit is up to twelve billion four hundred twenty seven million dollars.

AUGUST 7, 1958: President Eisenhower signs into law an appropriations bill for defense in the amount of thirty nine billion six hundred and two million eight hundred and twenty seven thousand dollars.

1961: President Eisenhower allots forty seven billion six hundred and fifty four million dollars for defense.

NOVEMBER 28, 1961: President Kennedy “reached the decision that silver metal should gradually be withdrawn from our monetary reserves.”

1963: Six days prior to President John F. Kennedy being assassinated, he ordered the Treasury to print United States Notes to be used as legal tender, a limited amount were printed before his untimely death. This action would have put the Federal Reserve out of business because they would no longer be able to collect interest on the money they would have printed. This would have eventually removed the financial and political control the international bankers had over this country. Ten days prior to his assassination President Kennedy said “The high office of President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American’s freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizen of his plight.”

NOVEMBER 22, 1963: President John F. Kennedy is assassinated. One of the first acts President Johnson orders is the reversal of the order President Kennedy had made, which had allowed the printing of United States Notes without interest. Was President Kennedy assassinated for the same reasons as President Lincoln?

NOVEMBER 26, 1963: Prior to this date the Federal Reserve notes were a promise to pay and were redeemable on demand by the bearer for lawful money. After President Johnson’s order to remove the United States notes, the Federal Reserve issued Federal Reserve notes without the promise to pay to the bearer on demand lawful money. Interestingly, the first fifty million no-promise federal reserve notes were shipped out the same day that President John F. Kennedy was buried.

MARCH 8, 1965: The first troops landed in Vietnam.

1967: The deficit is announced to be twenty five billion dollars.

JUNE 1968: Marked the first time in United States history that a paper currency, purportedly designated as legal tender, was not directly or indirectly redeemable in silver or gold coin or bullion.

SEPTEMBER 30, 1967: President Johnson submits a record budget of one hundred and eighty six billion dollars.

JANUARY 29, 1971: President Nixon announces that the deficit is thirty eight billion seven hundred and eighty three million dollars.

1972: President Nixon announces the federal government will share thirty billion dollars with State and local governments.

1974: President Nixon announces a fiscal budget of three hundred and four billion four hundred million dollars.

FEBRUARY 3, 1975: President Ford announces a deficit of fifty one billion five hundred million dollars.

At the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin felt there was too much preoccupation with salaries. He therefore addressed the Constitutional Convention: “Sir, though we may set out in the beginning with moderate salaries, we shall find that such will not be of long continuance. Reasons will never be wanting for proposed augmentations; and there will always be party for giving more to the ruler, that the rulers may be able to return to give more to them. Hence, as all history informs us, there has been in every State and kingdom a constant kind of warfare between the governing and the governed, the one striving to obtain more for its support, and the other to pay less. And this has alone occasioned great convulsions, actual civil wars, ending either in dethroning of the princes or enslaving the people. Generally, indeed, the ruling power carries its point, and we see the revenues of princes constantly increasing, and we see that they are never satisfied, but always in want of more. The more the people are discontented with the oppression of taxes, the greater need the prince has of money to distribute among his partisans, and pay the troops that are to suppress all resistance, and enable him to plunder at pleasure.” “Sir, the saving of the salaries, that may at first be proposed, is not an object with me. The subsequent mischiefs of proposing them are that I apprehend. And therefore it is that I move the amendment. If it is not seconded or accepted, I must be contented with the satisfaction of having delivered my opinion frankly, and done my duty.”

The highly qualified language of Article I8, cl. 2 also repels the clause empowers Congress “To borrow money on the credit of the United States” only. A forced loan, however, implies that the government has no credit in the eyes of reluctant lenders, and that it must compel the latter to part with their money because it can no longer convince them of its ability and intention to repay full value at a future time.

Davy Crockett, while serving as a Congressman helped fight a fire one night that broke out in a suburb of Washington. The next morning the Congress voted twenty thousand dollars to assist those whose homes were destroyed. Crockett voted for it. However, when he went home he found himself in deep trouble with one of his constituents named Horatio Bunce. Bunce commended him for the anxiety to help the victims of the fire but scolded him for using other people’s money as “charity.” He challenged Crockett to find where the Constitution allowed Congress to spend one penny of other people’s money for charity. Crockett couldn’t think of any such provision. Crockett returned to Congress and ran into a similar situation. Congress wanted to give a substantial sum to the widow of a distinguished naval officer who had just died. Crockett took the floor and said: “Mr. Speaker, I have as much sympathy as any man in the House, but Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. . . . I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.” Mr. Crockett took his seat and the bill was defeated but none of the wealthy Congressman offered to meet his plea to donate one weeks pay to the widow.

A contemporary of the Revolution, Peletiah Webster said: “Paper money polluted the equity of our laws, turned them into engines of oppression, corrupted the justice of our public administration, destroyed the fortunes of thousands who had confidence in it, enervated the trade, husbandry, and manufactures of our country, and went far to destroy the morality of our people.”

Bruce A. Budlong, the acting director of the special financing staff of the Department of Treasury said: “The same monetary system that was established on April 2, 1792, is in effect today.”

Jefferson strongly opposed a perennial national debt: “The question, whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here [France] on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be transmitted, I think very capable of proof. I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self-evident: that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living; that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. If [one generation] could charge another with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence.” Jefferson said: “I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, and give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have not time to think, no means of calling the mismanager’s to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow sufferers. This example reads to us the salutary lesson that private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance. And this is the tendency of all human governments. Departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second, that second for a third, and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering. Then begins indeed the bellum omnium in omnia which some philosophers, observing it to be so general in this world, have mistaken for the natural instead of the abusive state of man. And the forehorse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.”

Ellsworth said during the Convention: “Thought this a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money. The mischiefs of the various experiments which had been made were now fresh in the public mind, and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America. By withholding the power from the new government, more friends of influence would be gained to it money can in no case be necessary. Give the government credit, and other resources will offer. The power may do harm, never good.”

Wilson said during the Convention: “It will have a most salutary influence of the credit of the United States to remove the possibility of paper money. This expedient can never succeed whilst its mischiefs are remembered. And as long as it can be resorted to, it will be a bar to her resources.”

Butler said during the Convention: “That paper was a legal tender in no country in Europe. He was urgent for disarming the government of such a power.”

Today the American economy operates under a monetary system which is completely outside the Constitution. Its fiat money is continually manipulated both in value and in quantity. [THE MAKING OF AMERICA 1985]

The definition of fiat money is: “money composed of otherwise essentially valueless things that neither have a commercial use nor constitute a claim against anyone, but do have a special legal qualification. The money is not the material bearing the stamp as authority but the stamp alone.”

C.C. Pinckney said during the Convention: “That paper money corrupted the morals of the people; it had diverted them from the paths of honest industry to the ways of ruinous speculation; it had destroyed both public and private credit, and had brought total ruin on numberless widows and orphans.” “I apprehend these general reasoning will be found true with respect to paper money: that experience has shown that, in every state where it has been practiced since the revolution, it always carries the gold and silver out of the country, and impoverishes it.”

Sherman said during the Convention: “This was a favorable crisis for crushing paper money. If the consent of the legislature could authorize emissions of it, the friends of paper money would make every exertion to get into the legislature in order to license it.”

T. Coleman Andrews served as Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service for nearly three years in the early fifties. Finally he resigned and made the following statement: “The income tax is fulfilling the Marxist prophecy that the surest way to destroy a capitalist society is by steeply graduated taxes on income and heavy levies upon the estates of people when they die. As matters now stand, if our children make the most of their capabilities and training they will have to give most of it to the tax collector and so become slaves of the government. People cannot pull themselves up by their own bootstraps anymore because the tax collector gets the boots and the straps as well. The income tax is bad because it is oppressive to all and discriminates particularly against those people who prove themselves most adept at keeping the wheels of business turning and creating maximum employment and high standard of living for their fellow men. I believe that a better way to raise revenue must be found because I am convinced that the present system is leading us right back to the very tyranny from which those, who established this land of freedom, risked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to forever free themselves.”

The American historian George Bancroft said: “History cannot name a man who has gained enduring honor by causing the issue of paper money. Wherever such paper has been employed, it has in every case thrown upon its authors the burden of exculpation under the plea of pressing necessity. Paper money has no hold, and from its very nature can acquire no hold, on the conscience or affections of the people. It impairs all certainty of possession, and taxes none so heavily as the class who earn their scant possession, by daily labor. It injures the husbandman by a twofold diminution of the exchangeable value of his harvest. It is the favorite of those who seek gain without willingness to toil; it is the deadly foe of industry. No powerful political party ever permanently rested for support on the theory that it is wise and right. No statesman has been thought well of by his kind in a succeeding generation for having been its promoter.”

This is what the Lord had to say about usury in Exodus 22:25: “If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest.”

Leviticus 25:35-37: “If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you. You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit.”

Deuteronomy 23:19-20: “Do not charge your brother interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest. You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite, so that the LORD your God may bless you in everything you put your hand to in the land you are entering to possess.”

Psalms 15:5: “Who lends his money without usury and does not accept a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things will never be shaken.”

Ezekiel 18:8: “He does not lend at usury or take excessive interest. He withholds his hand from doing wrong and judges fairly between man and man.”

Ezekiel 18:13: “He lends at usury and takes excessive interest. Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he will surely be put to death and his blood will be on his own head.”

Ezekiel 18:17: “He withholds his hand from sin and takes no usury or excessive interest. He keeps my laws and follows my decrees. He will not die for his father’s sin; he will surely live.”

Ezekiel 22:12: “In you men accept bribes to shed blood; you take usury and excessive interest and make unjust gain from your neighbors by extortion. And you have forgotten me, declares the Sovereign LORD.”

The definition of usury is: “Interest; or premium paid or stipulated to be paid for the use of money.” [Noah Webster 1828] In the Hebrew the word usury means; “interest.”

By a preponderance of the evidence; even if you don’t recognize the Bible teachings, you cannot deny the thinking of our forefathers. Clearly they wanted this country to abstain from paper money. If you will read the money clauses in the United States Constitution it is obvious that their intent was to prevent the use of paper money.

So what happened?

The international bankers were able to position men who were indebted to them in all areas of government, including the judiciary. And with unlimited money resources were able to influence world events like wars including Desert Storm. A glance back through history will show you this is correct. Am I laying all blame on the bankers? Not at all. Their plan could not have succeeded without the greed of man and his love for money. The internationalist plans are nearly complete. What are their goals? World domination and the ownership of people.

“At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some trans-Atlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us with a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined could not, by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men, we must live through all times, or die by suicide.” (Abraham Lincoln)

“If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.” (Winston Churchill)

Unfortunately this country and its people played a deciding role in their plans. Without this governments resources and the country’s manpower and blind obedience they could not have succeeded. Our forefathers share the greater share of the blame, because in their era the balance of power was not so overwhelming in the hands of the government. Apathy about what the king was doing behind closed doors has created our predicament, past and present.

The government has clearly violated the Constitution and the mind set of our forefathers regarding the use of paper money. As a result this Country was bankrupted by 1933 and as a corporation the government defaulted its right to govern; and by continuing to do so, is operating under color of law. Since that time this country has received its just reward just as our forefathers predicted. The nation has become immoral as a result and the taxes unbearable to the middle class and the poor. Because of the government representatives, who are foreign agents and represent the international bankers, not Americans, this country is under a Foreign King. This Nation is still under British rule. The United Nations is a front for the King to control the world. The United Nations was granted its power by the United States and other member nations. The Rockefeller’s gave the United Nations then land on which it operates, the United States voluntarily became subservient to the United Nations in October 24, 1945. It also granted this foreign organization a Title of Nobility, which is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. This was all done while the American people sat back and watched in a inebriated state, enjoying the social benefits.

“Everyone wants to live at the expense of the State. They forget that the State lives at the expense of everyone.” (Frederic Bastiat)

Can this government be saved? Doubtful. The slate needs to be wiped clean, and begun a new with a fresh start. This time without paper money, we need to go back to a gold and silver standard as our forefathers wanted. You may choose to disagree with the statements I’ve made at the end of this paper. But, when this government collapses of its own accord as our forefathers predicted, and God Almighty predicted in His written Word, maybe then you will believe — if you are still alive.

[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.” Cornwallis went on to explain what would seem to be a self contradiction: “Your churches will be used to teach the Jew’s religion and 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 religions will be permeated with Judaism without even being noticed by the masses, and they will all be under the invisible all-seeing eye on the Grand Architect of Freemasonry.”

James Franklin Montgomery SUI JURIS

John Forbes Kerry

January 3, 2017

I think this is going on.. Has been going on for decades. Using doubles and even multiples playing various officials.

john-kerry-600x838

john-forbes-kerry-600x372

http://www.wellaware1.com/john-kerry-fail/

http://illuminati-actors.blogspot.com/2010/06/john-kerry-played-by-ted-danson-wife.html

The Self-Ennobling Ones and their self-validating clergys programme of eugenics ‘appears’ unstoppable –

December 7, 2016

The Self-Ennobling Ones and their self-validating clergys programme of eugenics ‘appears’ unstoppable –

Pope Francis Encourages Scientists To Work On Sustainable Development
http://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2016/11/29/pope-francis-encourages-scientists-work-sustainable-developmen/

With Pope’s Help, U.N. Bypasses Congress On Global Socialism
http://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2015/09/24/with-popes-help-u-n-bypasses-congress-on-global-socialism/

~

Scott and Shackleton logbooks prove Antarctic sea ice is not shrinking 100 years after expeditions
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=143126

Source:

Scott and Shackleton logbooks prove Antarctic sea ice is not shrinking 100 years after expeditions
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/11/24/scott-shackleton-logbooks-prove-antarctic-sea-ice-not-shrinking/

~

The money behind the transgender movement
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=138317

Redefining Heterosexuality the Gay Agenda

Breaking News! Ted Nugent Is A Character Role

November 18, 2016

When appearing as Steve Bratspies you’re looking at the actor who plays Ted Nugent. He alters his appearance with facial appliances and puts on that silly camo hat and goes into his Nugent role.. No telling what his real name is which undoubtedly ties him into the bloodline of one of the elite families many entertainment deceptions bolstering the left versus right paradigm hoax.. The leftist is fooled into hating this character and the rightist is fooled into loving him.. The Nuge is a bigger JOKE than even the lefty minded folks thought.. Clown Fraud..

Fake News To The Left Of Me Fake News To The Right Of Me

November 17, 2016

David Rockefeller wrote a book entitled “Memoirs” in which he admits secretly conspiring for the creation and implementation of a world government and the use of fake news to get it…And the best part is they can conspire to make it legal while lying to you.. That’s right, lying to you is legal.. I always get a giggle out of that word conspire.. You can conspire to be nice or evil.. To conspire is to breath.. I guess nobody is breathing in the world around us.. I must be a breathing theorist.. Lol.. You’re one of those breathing theorists…

“Some even believe we [Rockefeller family] are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – One World, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”—David Rockefeller

Rockefeller further reveals the journalistic organizations whose mission it is to engage in the furtherance of fake news.

Decades of fake news;

“I am grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion.”—David Rockefeller

Thank you for the fake news;

“We are grateful. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a World Government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries”—David Rockefeller to Trilateral Commission in 1991

Hear I am Stuck In The Middle Of It All…